


mm^k.'A^^K 






Hf\hf\h 



^^^^A^fA^^^, 



../*>» 



'^ftAAA^^^A^^AA(^A^'^^^^f^An5A^ 



AA#^^^^^Aa.aaAaaa^... 



'^fAr^,A^^^/^^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Si^p. ®jjp5rig|t !fn.- 

Shelf •.Q.4.- 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



«*>*^^.^ .A. 



^^^f\^^^f\^!^^^^^^r 



W\hh 



^^rlA^^ 



A^A - .r\nf\r\i 



'■^^A^A.OftA^^^,AA..A^ 






''^.fi^^AAft. 



iJJIfm 



^'A^*r\AraWKA>! 






C'.^^^^^^, 



Al^^4 4 






'mM 



mm^^^^^Bi^ 












^A^ri(>^i 






^^^\i«^r,^ 












^mm^^ 






^AAAA'^A' 






AAAAAAf^AfY*/ 



\AAAAAi 






.AAAAA 



NAAAA(^.A^0->A,A^;,',^n^^||4. 



I^Wm,^»\^A^» 



Aa.a'^AA' 






,nAA'^/^r.A,^r- 



■'*-SvAr\^Ar^'^/^^^, 



:,....^AAnA'^A^'^^^ _,; -- -:.. '^'^...^.^■v. ' >,^,Aa- 
lA*Ai''^A,^AAAAAAAAAAA'^AAA» ■"-- """ 

^AaM*....,aaaaaaa5aAa^a.'.^C^*0aaa - ■ - ^f^^:'-^ 



MODERN 



SCIENTIFIC VIEWS 



GHRISTIAN D06TRIDES 



COMPARED. 



BY 



Rev. JOHN GMEINER, 

PUOFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SeMINAUY AT St. FkANCIS, 

Milwaukee Co., Wis. 



" It is true, that a little philosophy incliueth man's mind to 
Atheism, but depth iu philosophj- briugeth men's minds about to 
Relig-ion."— i^ra/im Bacon of Verulam. 



^ / 

MILWAUKEE, WIS: "fO^^^^ 

J. H- Yewdale & Sons, Printers, 
1884. 



•^6 



Entered according- to Act of Cong-ress, in the j^ear 1884, by 

Rkv. JOHN GMEINER, 

in the oliice of the Librarian of Congress, at AVashing-ton, D. C. 

(AT.L, RIGHTS RESERVED.) 



PREFACE. 



A PROMINENT American unbeliever observed, not long 
ago, in a leading periodical: " A profound change has taken 
place in the world of thought. . . . Christians excuse 
themselves for belonging to the Church, by denying a part 
of the creed. The idea is abroad that they who know the 
most of Nature believe the least about Theology. The 
sciences are regarded as infidels, and facts as scoffers." 

It is, alas ! but too true that many intelligent people of 
our country have become either open opponents or indiffer- 
ent to the truths of Christianity, because they labor under 
the -false impression, that Modern Science has brought 
facts to light which demolish the very foundation of Chris- 
tian belief. It is taken for granted by many so-called 
advanced thinkers, that the Mosaic Account of the Crea- 
tion and primeval history of mankind has been complete- 
ly refuted by the results of modern scientific research, 
that no vestige of a Creator or Supreme Ruler of the 
Universe is to be found in visible Nature, that the soul of 
man is essentially alike to the life-giving principle of brutes, 
and its immortality, at least, doubtful, etc. 

Such and similar infidel views, which are destructive of 
the very fundamental doctrines of Christianity, are more or 
less openly taught in many schools, colleges, and universities, 
and published in books, pamphlets, and papers, which are 
circulated throughout the country. Hence, we need not 
be surprised to find that many of our intelligent reading 
people, among them lawyers, physicians, teachers, editors, 



IV. PREFACE. 

Students, and even mechanics and farmers, have become im- 
bued with would-be scientific views incompatible with Chris- 
tian belief. In fact, no Christian family-circle is secure from 
the baneful influence of infidel doctrines. 

To ignore the disagreeable fact, that the tendency of many 
modern so-called advanced thinkers is decidedly infidel and 
anti-Christian, will not remedy the evil nor neutralize its 
influence on the Christian youth of this country. The only 
effective way of combating infidelity, in the usurped garb of 
Modern Science, seems to be, to show that all assertions 
about conflicts between Religion and Science are perfectly 
unfounded. 

This I have endeavored to do in the following pages. Be- 
lieving modern would-be scientific infidelity to be, probably, 
the most insidious and formidable foe the Church has to 
contend with in this country, a favorite study of mine for the 
last fifteen years has been, to compare the results of modern 
scientific research with the doctrines of Christianity. 

While preparing the following pages for the press, it has 
been my aim to avoid all one-sided or nai*row-minded views, 
knowing these to be the fruitful sources of the so-called con- 
flicts between Science and Religion. For this reason I ha,ve 
consulted on the different points treated, the works of 
eminent scientific authorities of various shades of religious 
belief, Catholic, Protestant, indifferent, and infidel, as the 
reader will notice in glancing over the names of the authors 
mentioned. 1 have, moreover, endeavored to select as far as 
possible, only really eminent and reliable scientific and theo- 
logical authorities, for such alone can fairly be considered 
representative exponents of Modern Science and Religion. 
To avoid the danger of misrepresenting the statements of 
these authorities, I deemed it best, as a rule, to give their 
exact words, as is usually done in publications wherein the 
views of different writers are compared; for the exact mean- 
ing of an author can seldom be given any better than in his 
own words. 



PREFACE. V. 

I take pleasure in expressing here my sincere thanks to the 
learned reverend gentlemen, William Mahoney, of St. John's 
Cathedral, at Milwaukee, and S. Lebl, D. D., Professor 
of Philosophy, Sacred Scripture, etc., in our Seminary, for 
their kind and valuable assistance in j)reparing these pages 
for the press. 

May this humble volume be welcome, and, with God's 
blessing, useful to many: to such as live in infidel society, 
or occasionally associate with unbelievers; to such as have 
intidel friends to whom they would wish to give a suitable 
book to read; to such as sometimes read infidel publications; 
to students of seminaries, colleges, and universities, who 
cannot ignore modern scientific views nor their bearings on 
Christian doctrines; and to reverend pastors in whose con- 
gregations infidel influences may be undermining Christian 
religion. 

The sentiments with which I offer this book to the reader, 
1 cannot better express than in the words of the great 
teacher St. Augustine (De Vera Religione, 20): '^ Quae vera 
esse i)erspexeris, tene et Ecclesiae Catholicae tribue; quaefalsa^ 
respite et mihi, qui homo sum, ignoscey 

REV. JOHN GMEINER, 

St. Francis, near Milwaukee, Wis. 

July 16, 1884. 



Errata: Page 15, line 12, last word, read " all " instead of 
" alone." Page 64, line 17, fourth word, read " dry" instead 
of " day." 



CONTENTS 



I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. page. 

1. The Two Books of God, 1 

2. Assertions of Modern Unbelievers, . . 4 

3. What Christians Believe Concerning the Bible, 6 

4. The Bible and Profane Sciences, ... 10 

5. The Church and Science 13 

II. The Okigin of the Univekse. ... 17 

III. ASTRONOMY. 

1. The Visible Universe, 20 

2. Are Other Visible Worlds, besides Our Earth, 

Inhabited by Intelligent Beings Similar to 
Man? 24 

3. Man, the Crown of the Visible Universe, and 

the Earth, the Scene of the Incarnation of 

the Son of God, 33 

4. The Location of Heaven and Hell, . . 3G 

5. Unity of the Visible Universe, .... 39 

6. The Future of the Visible Universe, . . 44 

7. The Theory of Laplace on the Evolution of the 

Visible Universe. 49 

IV. GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY. 

1. The Six So-Called Days of Creation, . . 54 

2. The Origin of the Mosaic Account of the Crea- 

tion, 50 

3. The Mosaic Account of the Creation Compared 

with the Results of Modern Scientific Inves- 
tigations. 61 

V. BIOLOGY. 
1, The Appearance of Organic and Living Beings 

on the Earth, 76 



Vlll. CONTENTS CONTINUED. 

2. Modern Scientific Views on Matter and Life, 83 

3. Mysteries of Nature, . .... 88 

4. Christian Philosophy on Matter and Life. , 95 
VI. PSYCHOLOGY. 

1. Animal Sensation and Human Intelligence, . 107 

2. Animal Instinct and Human Reason, . . 113 

3. The Relations of Body and Mind in Man, . 129 

4. The Immortality of the Human Soul, . . 139 

5. The Human Soul After the Death of the Body, 

and the Doctrine of the Resurrection. . 148 
VII. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN THE OR- 
GANIC WORLD 152 

VIII. MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN. 

1. Man's Place and Object in Nature, . . . 170 

2. The Origin of Man, 174 

3. Antiquity of Mankind, 185 

4. The Deluge, 195 

5. The Long Life of the Ancient Patriarchs, . 198 

6. The Specific Unity of Mankind, ... 199 

7. Was Adam the First Man? .... 201 
IX. MAN AND THE INVISIBLE WORLD. . 208 

X. CONCLUSION 211 



I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

THE TWO BOOKS OF GOD. 

rpHERE are two different books by which God teaches 
mankind — the Book of Nature and the Book of Rev- 
elation. Even Thomas Paine obseiwes :^ " The universe 
is the Bible of a true Theophilanthropist. It is there 
that he reads of God * * * Contemplating the universe, 
the whole system of creation, in this point of light, we 
shall discover that all that which is called natural philos- 
ophy is properly a divine study. It is the study of God 
through His works * * * Do we want to contemplate His 
power ? We see it in the immensity of the creation. 
Do we want to contemplate His wisdom ? We see it in 
the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible 
Whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate His 
munificence ? We see it in the abundance with which 
He fills the Earth. Do we want to contemplate His 
mercy ? We see it in His not withholding that abund- 
ance even from* the unthankful * * * It has been the 
error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the 
other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as 
accomplishments only ; whereas they should be taught 
theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the 
author of them : for all the principles of science are of 
divine origin." 

The other book by which God teaches mankind, is His 
1. The Theological Works of Thomas Paine, Chicago, 1882, pp. 290-1. 



2 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

supernatural Revelation, which He made by persons 
inspired or guided by His Spirit, and by His Incarnate 
Son. The means which God has given to man, to read 
these two different books, are — Reason, to read the Book 
of Nature, and Faith, to read the Book of Revelation. 
No doubt, different truths are taught in the Book of 
Nature, and in the Book of Revelation ; and many of 
the truths taught in these two books, seem to be little 
related to one another. For instance, Geometry has 
little to do with the Doctrine of Justification, — Geology, 
little with Baptism ; Botany, and Astronomy, seem to be 
perfect strangers to the Doctrines of the Incarnation, 
Trinity, etc. 

We may say, these two books contain two quite dif- 
ferent realms of truth ; the one, the truths of the natural 
order, which man can investigate with the aid of his 
own natural faculties ; and, the other, especially " myste- 
ries hidden in God, which, unless divinely revealed, 
cannot be known by men." At first sight, it might 
seem that Nature and Revelation, Science and Christian 
Belief, are mutually independent and perfectly unrelated 
to one another. Yet, as Church and State, though quite 
distinct, now and then meet on some few points : so, also, 
some of the truths of Nature, or Science, and some Doc- 
trines of Revelation, occasionally come in contact with 
one another ; and it is on some such points, unbelievers 
claim, that there exists a conflict between Science and 
Revelation. 

Now, God being the source of all truth, the Author of 
both Reason and Revelation, it is impossible that He 
should teach anything as true in His Revelation, and 



CHRISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPARED. 3 

contradict the same in His works of Nature. There- 
fore, the Church has always held that there never can 
exist any real contradiction, or conflict, between Xature 
and Revelation, between Reason and true Christian 
Belief. 

The late Vatican Council declared : " Although Faith 
is above Reason, there can never be any real discrepancy 
between Faith and Reason, since the same God who 
reveals mysteries and infuses Faith, has bestowed the 
light of Reason on the human mind, and God cannot 
deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The 
false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due 
either to the dogmas of faith not having been under- 
stood and expounded according to the mind of the 
Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been 
taken for the verdicts of Reason. We define, therefore, 
that every assertion contrary to a t7'uth of enlightened 
Faith is utterly false * * * And not only can Faith and 
Reason never be opposed to one another, but they are 
of mutual aid one to another ; for right Reason demon- 
strates the foundations of Faith, and enlightened by its 
light, cultivates the science of things divine ; while 
Faith frees and guards Reason from errors, and furnishes 
it with manifold knowledge. So far, therefore, is the 
Church from opposing the cultivation of Human Arts 
and Sciences, that it in many ways helps and promotes 
it * >f= * . ]^Qp (jQgg ii^Q Church forbid that each of these 
Sciences, in its sphere, should make use of its own prin- 
ciples and its own method ; but, while recognizing this 
just liberty, she (the Church) stands watchfully on guard 
lest Sciences, setting themselves against the Divine 



4 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

Teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should 
invade and disturb the domain of Faith." 

These words express the doctrine the Church has 
always held as to the relations between Science and 
Divine Revelation. This doctrine may be expressed in 
these few words : "iVb truth of Science does^ or ever can^ 
contradict any truth of Divine Revelation.'''' 

ASSERTIONS OF MODERN UNBELIEVERS. 

Modern unbelievers, of course, assert that Science has 
refuted doctrines of Revelation. Mr. Ingersoll, whose 
boldness in making unfounded assertions is well-known,^ 
declares in his lecture on Thomas Paine : " Since his 
(Thomas Paine's) day, it (the Bible) has been proven 
false in its Cosmogony, false in Astronomy, false in its 
Chronology, false in its History, and so far as the Old 
Testament is concerned, false in almost everything." 

It is strange that only infidels can see that any doc- 
trines of Divine Revelation have been refuted by Sci- 
ence. Vast numbers of learned Christians, who have 
studied more carefully than ordinary ijifidels, both the 
doctrines of Revelation and the results of modern 
scientific investigations, cannot see any conflict what- 
ever between Science and Religion. 

How is it to be explained that our infidels chron- 
ically imagine to have discovered some such conflict ? 
The only plausible explanation that can be given, is 
contained in the famous words of Alexander Pope : " A 
little learning is a dangerous thing ;" for, as the English 
philosopher Bacon observes : " A little philosophy 

2. See Notes on Ingersoll, by Rev. L. A. Lambert, Buffalo, N. Y. 



CHRISTIA:jf DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 5 

inclineth man's mind to Atheism, but depth in philoso- 
phy bringeth men's minds about to religion." — Our 
infidels have learned just enough to see some seeming 
difiiculties between Science and Revelation, but, unfor- 
tunately, not enough to be able to solve these difiiculties. 

It is a great delusion of our modern infidels, to imagine 
that their infidelity is the product of Modern Science. 
Modern infidelity had its origin with the so-called Deists 
of England, in the 1 7th century, — long before the vari- 
ous branches of so-called Modern Science, as Geology, 
Paleontology, Spectrum- Analysis, etc., were much heard 
of. Another great delusion of some of our infidels is, 
to imagine that all great scientists were infidels. Facts 
prove the contrary. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Euler, 
Heinrich Steffens, Yon Schubert, Chas. von Raumer, 
John von Fuchs, Andrew and Rudolf Wagner, Friedrich 
Pfaff, J. Maedler, John Mueller, J. Hyrtl, Gustav Bisc- 
hoff, Herman von Meyer, E. von Leonhard, Fr. Aug. 
Quenstedt, K. E. von Baer, Deluc, L. Hauy, Cuvier, 
Alex. Brongniart, Binet, Biot^ Ampere, Aug. Cauchy, 
Marcel de Serres, De Blainville, Waterkeyn, Chalmers, 
Buckland, Whewell, Sedgwick, Fleming, Conybeare, 
Edward Hitchcock, John Macculloch, Hugh Miller, 
Benjamin Silliman, and many other great scientists, 
found no difiiculty in being believers in Christ, and 
profound st^udents of Nature at the same time.^ 

If, now and then, a prominent scientist is an infidel, 
he was, as a rule, an infidel before he was a scientist ; 
but he did not become an infidel in consequence of true 
science. Long before Modern Science was talked of, 

3. See Bibel uud Natur, by Dr. F. Heinrich Reusch, 2d Edition, Frei- 
burg, 1866, pp. 57-61. 



MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

infidels existed. About 3,000 years ago the Psalmist 
said of such : " The fool hath said in his heart, there is 
no God." Ps. 13, 1. True Science never lead any one 
to infidelity; but infidels usually endeavor to drag their 
infidelity into their scientific researches. 

Indeed, there exists no real contradiction between 
any truth of Science and any truth of Divine Revela- 
tion ; and, for reasons given above, there never can. 
All so-called contradictions are only imaginary, and are 
caused either by making unfounded assumptions, or by 
misinterpreting truths of Nature or of Revelation, — or 
of both at the same time. This shows the 7iecessity of 
examining carefully what exactly are undoubted residts — 
and not mere assumptions of Scietxce^ and what exactly 
are truths of Revelation. 

WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE CONCERNING THE BIBLE. 

Since most so-called scientific objections of modern 
infidels are directed against the Bible, let us consider 
what we, as Christians, believe concerning the Holy 
Book. 

In the first place, — the Bible is the Inspired Word of 
God. The late Council of the Vatican remarked on 
this point : " These books of the Old and New Testa- 
ment are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their 
integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in 
the decree of the said Council (of Trent), and are con- 
tained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. 
These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not 
because, having been carefully composed by mere human 
industry, they were afterwards apf)roved by her author- 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 7 

ity ; nor merely because they contain revelation, with no 
admixture of error, — but because, having been ivritten 
tmder the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God 
foi^ their Author, and have been delivered as such to the 
Church herself." 

The direct consequence of this doctrine, is that noth- 
ing false whatever, — not only in matters of faith and 
morals, but also in all other matters — could have entered 
into these Holy Books, — whilst they were written under 
the guidance of the Spirit of Truth. 

The next question is : Admitting that the inspired 
writers wrote down no error whatever — yet, have we, 
among the many different now existing copies and trans- 
lations of the Bible, still a version which gives us a 
reliable text of the Holy Books, as originally wi'itten 
under God's guiding inspiration? This question has been 
answered by the Council of Trent^ which declared that 
the ancient Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, which had 
been tested and approved of by long use, during several 
centuries, in the Church (quae longo tot saeculorum usu 
in ipsa ecclesia probata est), is to be considered as 
authentic (pro authentica habeatur) in public lectures, 
disputations, sermons, and expositions. Thereby, as the 
great theologian J. Perrone* teaches, the Council de- 
clared the intrinsic conformity of the Latin Vulgate 
translation with the original text not only in matters of 
faith and morals, but also in other matters, at least sub- 
stantially (saltem quoad substantiam). 

Some of the best Protestant biblical critics, as Bengel, 
Griesbach, Lachman, and Tischendorf, have, as Rector 

4. Praelectiones Theolog-icae, Eatisbonae, 1854, vol. iii, p. 125. 



8 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

M. Heiss, now Archbishop of Milwaukee, observes (in 
*'The Four Gospels Examined, etc.," 1863, p. 212), after 
careful researches come to these conclusions : 1. The 
Latin Vulgate is one of the authorities for critics who 
endeavor to restore a Greek text, more similar to the 
original text than the existing ones. 2. The Vulgate 
comes nearer to the real original, than any other modern 
translation, according to the so-called original Greek. 
Yet, that, in matters of minor importance, owing to 
mistakes of copyists and translators, differences exist 
between the Vulgate and the original text, which no 
more exists,- cannot be denied — facts prove it. For 
instance, some numbers and proper names have undoubt- 
edly been changed, as Dr. Kaulen, one of our most 
prominent bibli cists, conclusively shows. He remarks :^ 
" For intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, no change of texts 
has been introduced in the Holy Scriptures, which could 
disfigure their essential contents, especially in matters 
of faith and morals. But in the course of investigation 
it has been shown, that the form of the text of the Holy 
Scriptures is in very many passages not fixed beyond a 
doubt. According to Tischendorf's calculation, in the 
New Testament alone, more than thirty thousand dif- 
ferences can be found .among the various testimonies of 
tradition. See his publication: " Haben wir den aech- 
ten Schrifttext der Evangelisten und Apostel ?" Leipzig, 
1873, S. 12. Though most of these differences may be 
unimportant, yet the certainty is thereby taken away 
that we have still the text of the Holy Scriptures in the 



5. Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, Freiburg, 1876, p. 150. 



CHEISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPAKED. 9 

literal form, wherein it was written down by the inspired 
writers." 

If this can be said of the books of the New Testa- 
ment, we need not be surprised to find, on points of 
minor importance also, remarkable differences between 
the text of the Latin Vulgate translation and other 
existing texts of the Old Testament. For instance, 
there exists a notable difference between the Septuagint 
and the Vulgate concerning the times between the cre- 
ation of man and the Deluge, and between the Deluge 
and Abraham. Dr. Rohling remarks:*' " Even the Latin 
(Roman Catholic) Church has preserved these j^atent 
differences in her official books. The Roman Martyrol- 
ogy, for instance, says : In the year 5199, after the cre- 
ation of the world, in the year 295*7, after the Deluge, 
Jesus Christ was born. The Latins (Roman Catholics) 
preserve these numbers of the Greek version in their 
official books, although they accepted the Vulgate trans- 
lation with the numbers of the still existing Hebrew 
text (about 4000 years after the creation of man, and 2500 
after the Deluge)." 

Evidently, the original text, written down under the 
inspiration of God, cannot be made responsible for these 
differences, or contradictions ; for both the Septuagint 
and the Vulgate are claimed to be translations of the 
original text. The blame must consequently rest either 
with the copyists or the translators, who made the mis- 
takes. From all this we infer, that in purely scientific 
or profane matters, which the Bible mentions only inci- 



6. Natur und Offenbarung, Organ, etc., Muenster, 1872, p. 101. 



10 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

dentally, translators and copyists may have made mis- 
takes. 

THE BIBLE AND PROFANE SCIENCES. 

The next point of interest to us now, is the interpre- 
tation of the Holy Scriptures. The Vatican Council 
declared : '•'•In ^natters of faith and inorals, appertain- 
ing to the edification of Christian doctrine, that is to be 
held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy 
Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs 
to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy 
Scripture ; and, therefore, that it is permitted to no one 
to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, 
nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers." 

The meaning of this decision is explained by Dr. J. 
B. Heinrich^ as follows : " The authority of the Fathers 
(the venerable ancient teachers of the Church), as also 
the authority of the Church, extends only to matters of 
faith and mwals, and truths essentially connected with 
them. Consequently, purely scientific views of the 
Fathers, have no greater value than the scientific prin- 
ciples on which they rest * * * For sufficient reasons, we 
may reject them (those views), however unanimously 
they may b e held by the Fathers." 

Let us, finally, consider the relation in which the 
Bible stands to truths of the purely profane, or scientific, 
order, which have no, at least not a direct, bearing on 
religious truths. 

Dr. F. Henry Reusch^ and Dr. Bernard Schaefer,® 

7. Dogmatische Theologie, Mainz, 18T3, Vol. I, p. 810. 

8. Bibel and Natur, pp. 31-35. 

9. Bibel und Wissenschaft, Muenster, 1881, p. 4. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 11 

claim, with other great theologians, that it is never the 
object of supernatural Divine Revelation, consequently 
also not of the Bible, to enrich our purely profane 
knowledge ; — for the acquirement of which God has 
given us natural faculties. Therefore, we must assume 
that the Bible nowhere directly intends to give us in- 
structions on purely scientific subjects. 

To this truth another one may be added: In matters 
of purely profane, or scientific knowledge, the inspired 
writers, personally^ were not exempt from the false, or 
erroneous views of their contemporaries. Some of 
their views concerning the Earth, the Sun, the stars, 
etc., may have been not only very defective but even 
directly false. Moreover, it was not the object of Di- 
vine Revelation to correct such false views on matters 
of purely profane knowledge, — not even as far as the 
inspired writers themselves were personally concerned. 
But, on the other hand, the Spirit of Truth could not 
sanction with His authoi^ity any such errors, on even 
purely profane matters, in the wilting s which He inspired. 

We must therefore conclude, — that, although the in- 
spired writers may personally have had some erroneous 
views on matters of purely profane science, yet the 
Spirit of Truth, under whose guidance they wrote, could 
not permit them to write down anything false in the 
Inspired Writings, or the Bible ; for, otherwise the Spirit 
of Truth would have sanctioned falsehoods ; — which can- 
not be admitted, being a " contradictio in termhiis !'"' 

But, it will be urged, the Bible is full of expressions 
that are inconsistent with our present knowledge of nat- 
ural phenomena. — In the first place, in such matters of 



12 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

minor importance, translators and copyists may have 
made mistakes, as explained before. Moreover, in 
judging passages of the Holy Book, on matters of purely 
profane knowledge, it must be remembered that these 
are mentioned only incidentally ; for it was not the ob- 
ject of Divine Inspiration to instruct the inspired 
writers, or the readers of their writings, on such matters. 
Therefore, the Spirit of Truth could permit the inspired 
writers to use some popular phrases on profane matters, 
then in vogue, which, if strictly and absolutely consid- 
ered, were incorrect, yet nevertheless relatively, that is 
in a certain sense, — true. 

For instance, the Bible (Gen. 1, 16) calls the Moon 
one of the " two great lights." Now, strictly speak- 
ing, the Moon is no light at all, but only reflects the 
light of the Sun. — Moreover, the Moon is immensely 
smaller than countless thousands of fixed stars and 
planets, which appear to us as quite small. Therefore, 
strictly considered, it is not true that the Moon is one 
of the " two great lights " of the universe. Yet, con- 
sidered relatively, as we see it, it is true ; and it is in 
this latter sense, the Spirit of Truth permitted the in- 
spired writer to call the Moon one of the " two great 
lights." Again, we read Josue 10, 13: "The Sun and 
the Moon stood still." Strictly considered, this, most 
probably, was not true ; but so it appeared to those pres- 
ent. Therefore, they could say " the Sun and Moon 
stood still ;" just as we yet say, without telling a false- 
hood, the Sun rises, moves from east to west, etc.; 
although we know that it is the Earth that moves around 
the Sun, and not the Sun that moves around the Earth. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES COMrAEED. 13 

Therefore, whenever we read in the Bible of the Earth 
as standing firm, of the Sun and stars as moving, etc., 
we must remember that the Bible does not intend to 
teach any purely profane or scientific truths, but only 
incidentally uses popular phrases that are at least rela- 
tively, or in a certain sense, true. 

It is to be hoped that these explanations will sufiice 
to give the readers correct and clear ideas on the rela- 
tions of the Bible to matters of profane sciences. 

Having considered the doctrines of the Church on 
these points, let us next consider her practical attitude 
in relation to j^urely profane, or scientific, matters. 

THE CHUECH AND SCIENCE. 

The Church has never by solemn decisions of General 
Councils, or by definitions eoi cathedra, interfered in 
settling purely scientific questions. It is not her mission 
to teach profane sciences, but to teach all things what- 
soever Christ has commanded — Matth. 28, 20. Dr. 
Draper^" is greatly mistaken, when he asserts of the 
Church in the fourth century : " The Christian party 
asserted that all knowledge is to be found in the Scrip- 
tures and in the traditions of the Church ; that, in the 
written revelation, God had not only given a criterion 
of truth, but had furnished us all that He intended us 
to know. The Scriptures, therefore, contain the sum, 
the end of all knowledge." Had Dr. Draper, instead 
of indulging in unfounded assertions, studied the 
writings of the earlier Christian teachers, he would 
have found that they did not consider the Bible, or 

10. History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, p. 53. 



14 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

the traditions of the Church, as the source of all knowl- 
edge. They knew full-well that besides the divinely 
revealed truths, there were yet many other truths of 
the purely scientific order. For this reason many of 
the early Christian teachers studied, not only the Bible 
and the traditions of the Church, but also the writings 
of profane, even pagan, authors. St. Jerome, for in- 
stance, in his letter to the orator Magnus, gives the 
names of many prominent Christian teachers, from the 
days of St. Paul to his own time, of whom he says, 
^' that one knows not what to admire more, their pro- 
fane science or their knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures." 

Christian teachers have always maintained that outside 
of the sphere of the divinely revealed doctrines, there 
exists yet the vast realm of profane, or purely natural, 
sciences, — a boundless field in which the human mind 
may freely exercise itself. The Church has always scru- 
pulously avoided to trespass on this field; she has never 
interfered with purely scientific questions. Whenever 
the Church took notice of such questions, it was only 
when these, in some way or another, were intruded upon 
her doctrine or discipline. 

For instance, the Church opposed the idea, now and 
then mentioned between the fourth and eighth centuries, 
that there exist antipodes, — as long as it was also 
assumed that these antipodes were not descendants of 
Adam, and, consequently, not included in the Fall and 
Redemption of mankind. For her teaching always was, 
that in Adam all men have sinned, and Christ suffered 
for all. We now know that antipodes do exist ; yet 
the Church was right in protesting against the idea 



CHRISTIAX DOCTRIXES COMPAEED. 15 

that these presumed antipodes were no descendants of 
Adam. About the purely scientific question whether 
m*en could live also on the other side of the Earth, 
the Church never troubled herself. 

The persecution of Galileo is continually brought 
foi*ward, of course, also by Dr. Draper in his shallow 
work mentioned before, as an argument to prove that 
the Church was hostile to Science. It is true that Gali- 
leo was to some extent persecuted by authorities of the 
Church ; as also, that his theory was for a short time con- 
demned. But this was not done by any general Council 
or by any solemn definition ex cathedra^ to which aiSiTC 
members of the Church are bound to assent in matters 
of faith and morals ; but by one of the Sacred Congrega- 
tions at Rome. It is also true that this Congregation 
was mistaken in declaring Galileo's theory heretical. 
Although this declaration seems to have had the sanc- 
tion of the Pope, yet.no Catholic is bound to consider 
it as a definition ex cathedra ; no more than any other of 
the countless ordinary decisions of the Sacred Congrega- 
tions, which are regularly given with the sanction of 
the Pope. Moreover, in as far as the decision on Gali- 
leo's theory was a decision on a purely scientific ques- 
tion, — whether it is the Earth or the Sun, that moves — 
it did not properly come within the sphere of faith 
and morals, wherein alone the Church, or her visible 
Head, defining ex cathedra, claims infallibility. The 
proceedings against Galileo were also more a matter of 
ecclesiastic discipline, than a question of doctrine. Had 
not then all Europe been in the midst of the religious 
agitation caused by the so-called Reformation ; and had 



16 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

not the authorities of the Church feared that Galileo's 
imprudent and impertinent behaviour would add new 
troubles to the then existing revolt against the Church, 
his theory would most probably have remained unnoticed 
by the Sacred Congregation ; for the same theory, when 
first j)ublished by Copernicus, long before Galileo, was 
not condemned by the ecclesiastical authorities. 

To accuse the Church of hostility to Science, on 
account of the treatment of Galileo, is just as unfair as 
to accuse the government of the United States of hos- 
tility to the principles of free speech and free press, 
because during the last war some overzealous politicians 
and editors were imprisoned for using more liberty of 
speech and press, than the government then considered 
safe to allow. 

The Church is not, and never was, hostile to Science ; 
for she is convinced that all true Science has its source 
in God, and that He cannot teach contradictory truths. 

After these introductory explanations, let us proceed 
to examine those points on which some modern infidels 
claim to have discovered contradictions between Science 
and Divine Revelation. After carefully comparing what . 
exactly are the results of Science, and what exactly are 
Doctrines of Divine Revelation, on those points, all the 
imaginary contradictions, of which some infidels dream, 
will, like Macbeth's witches (in Shakespeare), have van- 
ished — 

" Into the air : and what seemed corporal, melted 
As breath into the wind." 



THE DOCTRINE OF CEEATIOX. lY 

II. THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. 

/^N beholding the visible universe, the question natu- 
^■^^ rally arises in the mind of every reflecting man : 
Whence have all these things, — the Sun, the stars, the 
Earth, the plants, animals, and man, — come ? 

Divine Revelation (Genesis, 1, 1,) answers : "In the 
beginning God created Heaven and Earth ;" — that is, 
called them — that did not exist before, — into existence. 

Some modern infidels claim that they cannot compre- 
hend a creation of something out of nothing. DiA'ine 
Revelation never taught that God made the world " out 
of nothing," — as if "nothing" had been "a raw mate- 
rial," to use one of Mr. Ingersoll's silly phrases. What 
Divine Revelation really teaches, is — that God? once 
called the universe — which did not, exist before, — into 
existence. 

If some infidels cannot comprehend how that was 
done, we will not blame them for it ; for there are yet 
numbers of daily observable phenomena which they can- 
not comprehend. No infidel can, for instance, explain 
even how a blade of grass grows ; how our will moves 
our arms, etc. ; how we think ; — what matter, force, life, 
etc., are. As long, then, as they cannot comprehend 
such palpable phenomena, they deserve no blame, if 
their limited intelligence cannot penetrate the mystery 
of Creation. 

A very popular infidel objection is the following, ex- 
pressed by Mr. Ingersoll in these words : " Nearly all 
truly scientific minds admit that matter must have 
existed from eternity. It is indestructible, and the 



18 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND 

indestructible cannot be created. It is the crowning 
glory of our century to have demonstrated the inde- 
structibility and eternal persistence of force. Neither 
matter nor force can be increased nor diminished." 
Prof. Tyndall also remarks : "As far as the eye of 
Science has hitherto ranged through Nature, no intrusion 
of purely creative power into any series of phenomena 
has ever been observed." 

Well, even if " the eye of Sc'ence " has not yet discov- 
ered any " purely creative power," that is no proof 
that such a power does not exist. With the most im- 
proved microscopes, " the eye of Science " has, for 
instance, still been unable to detect the mysterious 
power that makes plants grow and produce flowers and 
fruit ;• — and yet plants continue to do so, without waiting 
for " the eye of Science " to detect the mysteries of 
vital force. 

Moreover, every Christian may cheerfully admit that, 
in the existing order of things, neither a particle of 
matter, nor a minimum of force, in spite of all modern 
scientific progress, can be annihilated or created by man, 
or any other created being. Yet, this indestructibility 
of matter, and this persistance of force, do not prove that 
matter and force have not been originally created by 
God; they only show that God has created matter and 
force so, — that no visible or finite being can either anni- 
hilate or create them ; — this the Omnipotent alone can 
do. The lively imagination of our infidels is running 
away with their sound common sense, if, from the fact 
that, in the existing order of things, matter and force 




THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION. 19 

^•aniiot be destroyed, they jump to the conclusion that 
these, therefore, have not been created, but must have 
existed always. 

Some inquisitive infidels are also anxious to know 
what God did throughout the eternity that preceded the 
creation of the world. 

No doubt, people of small mental calibre would soon 
feel lonesome, if they would, for a length of time, be 
without company. Men of vast knowledge and pro- 
found reflective talents, on the contrary, never feel less 
lonesome than when they are alone; as, according to 
Cicero, P. Scii^io Africanus observed : " Xumquam 
minus solus, quam quum solus ; nee minus otiosus, quam 
quum otiosus sum." If some of our shallow-minded 
unbelievers soon feel lonesome, when they are alone, 
the reason can easily be explained ; but they have no 
right to judge, according to themselves, other men, — 
men of profound intellectual endowments. 

Such men feel not lonesome ; a solitary cell, a silent 
forest, a quiet starry night, is their most cherished 
society ; and in such society they gladly miss the society 
of talkative fellow-beings, not only for hours, but for 
days, months, — and even for years, as some anachorets 
have done. 

]*^ow, if such men, when alone, feel not lonesome, how 
iniinitely less God, whose eyes are " far brighter than 
the Sun" (Eccle.: 23,28); who, with one glance, from 
iill eternity, beheld not only all creatures that, in the 
course of time, were to spring into existence, but also 



20 ASTRONOMY AND 

His own infinite perfections, which are the source of 
His most perfect happiness, to which no society of finite 
creatures could give any substantial addition. 

III. ASTRONOMY. 

1. THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE. 

♦ 

"TITAVING answered the infidel objections against the 
doctrine of creation, we Avill next consider the 
works of creation, and the objections that infidels 
endeavor to draw from them, against Divine Reve- 
lation. Let us commence with the grand visible uni- 
verse, — the heavens, — above and around us. 

At first sight, the Earth appears to be a vastj fiat 
surface, above and around which the Sun, Moon and 
stars, move daily from east to west. The Sun and Moon 
appear as " two great lights ;" — the stars appear to be 
of by far lesser size than either the Sun or the Moon. 
With the help of the telescope and spectroscope, mod- 
ern Astronomy has given us a better insight into the 
real nature of the grand visible universe that sur- 
rounds us. 

We now know that the Earth does not stand still, and 
that the Sun and the stars do not move around the Earth. 
We now know that the Earth and several other planets 
move around the Sun, and that moons move around dif- 
ferent planets. The Sun, again, moves around its own 
axis ; and with all the planets of the solar system, and 
their moons, the Sun, moreover, moves, probably, around' 
some other central point or celestial body, in boundless 
space. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 21 

Little is known of the relations of our solar system to 
other systems of the sidereal universe. We may there- 
fore consider our solar system as a system for itself, 
whose center is the Sun. The Sun moves around its own 
axis, from west to east, in about twenty-five days, as 
we know from the motion of the Sun-spots.^ Also the 
planets (Mercury next to the Sun, then Venus, the 
Earth, Mars, the small planets, Jupiter, Uranus, and 
finally Keptune) move in orbits, that increase immensely 
with their distance from the Sun — from west to east, 
around the Sun. Again, the moons of the Earth, of Jupi- 
ter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, all move from west to 
east around their respective planets. It is therefore an 
illusion that the Earth stands still, and that the Sun 
moves around it ; it only seems so, as it would seem to 
one on a sailing ship, that the coast near by is moving, 
whereas in reality it is the ship that moves. 

Next : what is the distance between the Earth and 
the Moon, the Sun, and the stars ? The Moon revolves 
around the Earth at a distance of -nearly 240,000 miles.^ 
The Sun is about 95,000,000 miles distant from the 
Earth. The different planets, when nearest to the 
Earth, are between 57,000,000 and 2,761,000,000 miles 
off. What immense distances these are, may be 
imagined, when we consider that the diameter of our 
whole Earth is only a little over 8,000, and its circum- 
ference, only about 25,000 miles. But these distances 
are yet insignificant compared with the distances be- 

1. Astronomj", by J. Rambosson, translated by C. B. Pitman, New 
York, p. 74. 

3. Astronomy, by Denison Olmstead, revised by E. S. Snell, p, 113. 



22 ASTRONOMY AND 

tween the so-called iixed stars and the Earth. The 
French astronomer Camille Flammarion ^ asserts : "As 
no star offers a parallax of one second, it follows that 
the nearest of the stars is distant from the Earth no less 
than 206,265 times 92,000,000 miles. The space which 
surrounds the planetary system is void of stars to that 
distance at least. The star which is nearest to us, Alpha 
of Centaur, has a parallax of 0. "91. . Its distance from 
Earth is 226,400 times the radius of the Earth's orbit,, 
or 21,000,000,000,000 miles. This is our neighbor star, 
and its distance is probably the minimum distance be» 
tween star and star — 21,000,000,000,000 miles." The 
same scientist thinks that there are stars whose light 
cannot reach us in less than 1,00, 1,000, or 10,000 years, 
though light travels at the rate of 185,000 miles per 
second. 

After these remarks on the distances of stars, we may 
form a more correct idea concerning their real size. 
Daily observation teaches us that a shrub near by ap- 
pears taller than a distant oak, and an adjacent hill, larger 
than a distant mountain. The farther objects are away, 
the smaller they appear to us. The sidereal bodies 
appear to us to be small only on account of their im* 
mense distance. Let us see what their real sizes are ; — 
of a few of them, at least, we have a comparatively 
correct knowledge. Some of the planets are immensely 
larger than our Earth. For instance, the diameter of 
Jupiter is 85,399 miles, which makes it 1,887 times 
larger than our globe. Saturn as 746 times and Uranus 
73 times larger than our Earth, and the Sun is 354,986 

3. The Popular Science Monthly, New York; August, 1874, p. 426» 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 23 

times larger than the seemingly large globe we inhabit.* 
Again, the star Sirius is, according to Flammarion, 2,688 
times larger than our Sun. And of such immense suns, 
there must exist countless thousands among the stars 
too far distant to give a chance to calculate their dis- 
tance or size ! 

Dr. Carl Guettler^ remarks : " With the naked eye 
about 5,000, with the telescope over 300,000 stars have 
been counted. It is calculated that there are in all about 
500,000,000,000 of stars ; which calculation, however, is 
without scientific foundation, on account of the impos- 
sibility of penetrating the immense space of the uni- 
verse." 

We know that there must be countless thousands of 
stars, probably immensely larger than our Sun ; yet 
exactly how many, no mortal can tell. But, what little 
we know of the visible universe above us, justifies us in 
exclaiming : What is our little Earth compared with 
those numberless, immense globes that traverse the 
universe ! A leaflet compared with an immense forest, — 
a grain of sand compared Avith a mountain range, — a 
drop of water compared with the ocean ! 

And hence our modern infidels, instead of admiring 
the power and greatness of the Creator, suggest the fol- 
lowing objections : 1. The Earth, and consequently 
man, are incomparably insignificant in this immense 
universe of countless great worlds ; therefore Christians 
are mistaken in regarding man as the crown, the moral 
centre, of the visible universe. 2. How can one believe 

4. Astronomy, by J. Rambosson. pp. 346, 357, 106. 

5. Natui'forschung- und Bibel, Freiburg, 1877, p. 43. 



24 ASTRONOMY AND 

that God oliose this little speck in the vast universe, the 
Earth, to assume here human nature ? 3. Modern 
Astronomy has proved the old Christian views concern- 
ing the location of Heaven and hell to have been 
erroneous. Before replying to these objections, let us 
examine some other point of interest relating to the 
grand visible universe. 

2. ARE OTHER VISIBLE WORLDS, BESIDES OUR EARTH, 

INHABITED BY INTELLIGENT BEINGS 

SIMILAR TO MAN ? 

Far be it from us to deny that God's omnipotence 
could, or may, have created intelligent beings to inhabit 
the countless celestial bodies which the telescope reveals 
to us. Even the famous astronomer and theologian. 
Father Secchi, S. J., in his work on " The Sun," is 
inclined to think that the stars are " no uninhabited 
deserts," but the abodes of intelligent beings, " capable 
of knowing, worshipping, and loving the Creator. And, 
perhaps, these inhabitants of the stars have remained 
more faithful than we, in the discharge of their duty 
of gratitude towards Him, who has called them from 
naught into existence." ^ 

Also Prof. WinchelP favors this view. Yet, it is 
not our object to deal at present in questions of philo- 
sophical speculation, but in results of Modern Science. 
And Modern Science has not yet been able to detect any 
traces which would indicate that any other world is 

1. See Das andere Leben, Von Abbe Elie Merie, Mainz, 1882, p. 200. 

2. World-Life or Comparative Geology, Chicago, 1883, pp. 496-508. 

■m 



christia:^ doctrines compared. 25 

inhabited by such living beings as our Earth. What 
Modern Science can say on the subject is : Among the 
many thousands of celestial bodies with whose nature 
the telescope and spectrum-analysis have made us ac- 
quainted, we can find hardly any one whereon living 
beings similar to those existing on our Earth, could exist. 

Probably, nobody will expect such living beings to 
exist on the comets — those mysterious strangers from 
unknown parts of the universe, whose masses are, as 
Robert S. Ball, Astronomer-Royal of Ireland, says,^ 
*' almost imponderable." No musquito could find on 
them enough of tangible substance to stand on, — not to 
speak of their thermal conditions. 

There is also no probability that any living beings 
exist on the Moon. The best telescoi)es can find no 
traces of living"beings there. Moreover, no atmosphere 
surrounds the Moon, and all water that once may have 
existed on its surface has long since been absorbed by 
*' thirsty-rocks." Prof. Winchell* observes : " The total 
disappearance of water and air from the surface of 
the Moon may be assumed as evidence of an advanced 
stage of refrigeration ;" so that such living beings as 
could get along without air and water would have a fair 
chance of getting killed by cold. 

We next turn our attention to the Sun, in quest of a 
suitable abode for living beings. But here we meet 
intense heat. According to Kirchoff, the Sun consists 
of a solid, or partially liquid, nucleus in the highest state 
of incandescence. Such substances as iron, nickel, cobalt, 

3. Popular Science Monthly, June, 1883, p. 245. 

4. Geology of the Stars. 



w 



26 ASTRONOMY AND 

magnesium, etc., exist in the Sun only in the state of 
incandescent vapors. Consequently, any plant, or ani- 
mal, or man, we know of, would, in less than a second, 
be burned to invisible atoms on the Sun. The Sun, 
therefore, seems to be a very uncomfortable place for 
living in. Now, the author of " Spectrum- Analysis Ex- 
plained," asserts : " From all the observations thus far 
made, it may be concluded that at least the brightest 
stars have a physical constitution similar to that of our 
Sun. Their light radiates, like that of the Sun, from 
matter in a state of intense incandescence." Therefore, 
we must conclude that the fixed stars generally, which 
are suns like ours, and perhaps most of them immensely 
larger, are also not fit to be abodes for living beings, 
such as we are acquainted with. 

But were it not possible that some of the planets of 
our solar system are inhabited by living beings, similar 
to those found on Earth ? 

It would be rash to say that this were impossible ; — 
for God's omnipotence, no doubt, could create living 
beings adapted to great extremes of heat and cold. On 
our own Earth some minute organisms are found that 
withstand enormous extremes of cold or heat. The 
experiments of the English scientists W. H. Dallinger 
and Dr. Drysdale, have shown that the germs Of some 
microscopic animalculae withstand the enormous heat 
of 390 degrees F. (water boiling at 212 degrees). It 
would therefore be very rash to assert that it were 
impossible that any living beings, similar to those on 
Earth, do live, or could live, on any of the planets. Ac- 
cording to the now, among scientists, generally accepted 



CHKISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPARED. 27 

theory of Laplace, every planet, since it must gradually 
pass from the incandescent state of the Sun to the frigid 
present state of the Moon, must attain, at some time, a 
state similar to the present one of the Earth. With 
some of the planets, that state may be past ; Avith others, 
it may still come in the distant future. 

Yet the question arises, whether the solar light and 
heat that reach remoter planets, are sufficient to sus- 
tain there such life as flourishes on our globe. Mars 
receives only ^ as much light and warmth as the Earth ; 
Jupiter, 14.5 ; Saturn, 3/91 ; Uranus, ootj ; and Neptune, 
i-ooo. But, as some have suggested, a greater density of 
the atmosphere on these planets might more eifectually 
arrest the radiation of heat. Moreover, as Prof. Win- 
chell remarks,^ " the solar light on the remoter planets 
is supplemented by numerous moons, and must, at least, 
be equal to that of the deep waters and dusky terrestrial 
situations to which numerous forms of life are found 
especially adapted." 

Thus it seems possible that at least loAver forms of 
vegetable and animal life, could, at some time, exist on 
those planets ; but could the more perfect vegetable and 
animal types found on Earth, exist there ? 

This is to be doubted, as far as the largest and most 
distant planets, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter, 
are concerned ; — they are too distant from the Sun to 
ever get a climate somewhat similar to that of our pres^ 
ent Earth ; and without a similar climate, similar more 
highly organized types of plants and animals, or of 
man, could probably not exist. Also the planets nearest 

6. The Geology of the Stars. 



28 ASTRONOMY AND 

to the Sun, Mercury and Venus, seem to be unfit abodes 
for more perfectly organized living beings similar to 
those found on Earth. The intense heat these planets 
receive from the Sun, would probably kill all the more 
perfect plants and animals, we know of ; and by the time 
the Sun will have cooled off sufficiently, so as to send 
no more light or heat on Mercury or Venus, than at 
present on our Earth, these two planets will be in a state 
of perfect refrigeration — like our Moon at present ; con- 
sequently, without a drop of water on their surface ; and, 
without that, vegetable and animal life, as known to us, 
cannot exist. — From all we know of these planets, we 
may say that, probably, they will never have a climate 
similar to that of the Earth, and, consequently, also no 
highly organized plants and animals similar to those 
now living on our globe. 

The planet most similar to our Earth is Mars ; and if 
on any planet, it would be there that we ought to look 
for a place fit for living beings similar to those on our 
Earth. The French scientist Flammarion^ remarks of 
this planet. Mars : 1. The polar regions of Mars are 
alternately covered with snow, according to the seasons. 
2. Clouds and atmospheric currents exist there, as upon 
our Earth. — Flammarion even goes so far as to believe 
that the continents of Mars are covered with a reddish 
vegetation. But this belief rests only on imagination. 
The Civilta Cattolica, which published a series of excel- 
lent scientific articles in 1881, remarks on the red color 
of the continents of Mars : " The reason why the con- 
tinents of Mars appear red is entirely uncertain * * * 

7. Astronomy, by J. Rambosson, p. 343. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPARED. 29 

Most astronomers who treat on this point, think that the 
continents of Mars appear to us to be of a reddish hue, 
because the sand or barren soil of the planet is of this 
color." « 

Although, then, Mars is among the planets, the one 
most similar to the Earth in some respects, yet many 
circumstances exist there quite different from those of 
our Earth. In the first place. Mars being considerably 
more distant from the Sun than the Earth, it receives 
but ^9, not half, the light and heat the latter receives. 
Secondly, Mars having a mass but a tenth that of our 
globe,^ its power of attraction, or gravitation, must be 
proportionally less. Even if Mars had an atmosphere 
equal to our atmosphere in altitude, — what is not 
probable, — this atmosphere would be so thin that likely 
none of the higher plants or animals which thrive on 
the Earth, could live there. We may add, as Mr. John 
Pratt^^ observes : " The same set of conditions, in ex- 
aggerated degree, exist in the minor superior planets, 
Ceres, Pallas, Juno, etc., while the asteroids are as much 
out of the question as the comets and meteors. In re- 
gard to the Jovian and Saturnian satellites, only proba- 
ble conjecture can be indulged * * * But all the 
obstacles flowing out of deficient gravitation predicated 
of Mars, exist in equal degree in these satellites, the 
largest of which is inferior to Mars in dimensions." 

Thus, all things considered, we may say that we know 
of no planet within our solar system, whose climatic and 

8. La Civilta Cattolica, I. Luglio, 1881, pp. 31-32. 

9. Astronomy, by J. Eambosson, p, 244. 

10. The Popular Science Monthly, June, 1883, p. 205. 



30 ASTRONOMY AND 

other physical conditions can be nearly similar to those 
of the Earth, — and consequently we may conclude that 
these planets can, probably, never be inhabited by 
living beings similar to those on our Earth now. 

But could not such a planet — quite similar to the 
Earth in all respects, exist outside of our solar system ? 

God no doubt could, have created one, oi- numbers of 
them ; but we have no right to presume that He did ; 
— and Modern Science has no means to decide this 
point. 

Prof. Winchell" remarks: "The majority of the 
fixed stars, we may fairly conclude, are really other 
suns ; and, being such, it is almost certain that many of 
them are encircled by planets in all stages of develop- 
ment, from the self-luminous to the wholly refrigerated." 

Even admitting this, we have yet no right to assert 
that " thousands of these planets must at this moment 
exist in conditions analogous to those of our Earth," as 
long as we cannot find any such planets even within our 
own solar system. 

Much less have we any right to assert, as some sci- 
entists do, that those thousands of planets are " the 
abodes of organic creatures and thinking intelligences." 
Our own Earth might have safely arrived at its present 
stage of geological development, without as much as a 
leaflet or a worm existing on it ; — and it would have 
remained uninhabited, had not, at God's command^ the 
plants and living creatures, man included, appeared. — 
But Modern Science has no proof that God has enriched 



11. Geolog-y of the Stars, Boston. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 31 

any other globe, besides our Earth, with plants and ani- 
mals, or made it the abode of organic and intelligent 
creatures, like man. 

We may therefore conclude, with Mr. John Pratt : 
*' The insignificant little globe called the Earth furnishes 
the only assurance of the higher forms of life * * * 
The Earth is not the millionth part of the known matter 
of our system, and, compared with the space occupied 
by that system, is far more insignificant than the smallest 
■fleck of foam in the ocean. This tiny island in space 
does indeed teem with life." — That is about all Modern 
Science can tell on the subject : — The Earth, indeed, does 
teem with life ; — but whether there exists, in 'the vast 
universe, any other globe that teems with life, similar 
to that on our Earth, Modern Science does not know. 
All, then, it can say on the subject, is : 1 . Life, similar to 
that existing on our Earth, is impossible on the comets, 
on the Sun, and on the countless numbers of so-called 
fixed stars. 2. It is also, as far as the more perfect 
plants and animals are concerned, likely impossible on 
any other planet, or moon, of our solar system. 8. We 
have no known right for assuming that outside of our 
solar system there exists any celestial body with climatic 
and other physical conditions similar to those of our 
Earth. 4. And, even if such a globe, or globes, should 
€xist, we have not the slightest assurance that God 
has created any living beings on th'em. 

But here our utilitarian friends, who view all things 
from the standpoint of profit, — who murmur at the 
ocean for taking up so much of the surface of the Earth, 
that might be used with advantage for raising corn to 



32 ASTRONOMY AND 

fatten pigs, — or, who grumble at the majestic Alps and 
other mountains for spoiling many a fine field that could 
be profitably cultivated for raising potatoes, — will ex- 
claim : — But why did God create those numberless 
worlds — if there is nobody to live therein ? — Like Judas 
they exclaim : " To what purpose is this waste ?" 

We reply : " My thoughts are not your thoughts : 
nor your ways, my ways, saith the Lord." Isaias 55, 8. 
In creating the world, God had no pecuniary profit in 
view ; his object was infinitely more sublime. When 
God became man, the angels sang : " Glory to God in 
the highest : and on Earth peace to men of good will." 
Luke 2, 14. — So we also say, when God created the 
universe. His object was, to show His .glory outwardly, 
and to make the creatures, especially the rational ones, 
happy by partaking of the gifts of His goodness. We 
read in the Psalms 18, 2: "The heavens show forth 
the glory of God, and the firmament declared the work 
of His hands." To reflecting minds, admiring the 
beauty of the things created, the Holy Scriptures give 
the advice : " Let them know how much the Lord of 
them is more beautiful than they ; for the first Author 
of beauty made all those things." Wisdom, 13, 3. 
And St. Paul, Romans 1, 20, says of God : " The invis- 
ible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
made ; His eternal power also and divinity." 

The visible creation is a mirror in which God reflects 
to intelligent beings His infinite perfection, His power. 
His goodness, His wisdom, His justice, etc. Man is 
created for God ; and the cause of the happiness and 



CHEISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 33 

joy man feels in contemplating the visible creation, is, 
because it reflects, to some extent at least, the infinite 
beauty and perfections of the Creator. This is the true 
point of view from which the visible creation ought to 
be studied. Viewed in this light, we may understand 
the words of God addressed to Job : " Where wast 
thou * =i^ * when the morning stars praised me 
together, and all the sons of God (the angels) made a 
joyful melody ?" Job 38, 4-7. 

Whatever short-sighted utilitarians may think of the 
world, — all creatui-es continue to fulfill their object, — 
praise together their Lord and Creator, — and, all the 
sons of God, angels and God-loving men, — notice a joy- 
ful melody rising from their minds, when they contem- 
plate the works of the Creator. 

3. MAX, THE CROWX OF THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE, AXD THE 

EARTH, THE SCENE OF THE INCARNATION 

OP THE SON OF GOD. 

We may now proceed to consider certain objections, 
often advanced by infidels, as to the relation of man to 
the visible universe, and as to the Earth in relation to 
the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God. 

John Wm. Draper^ remarks : ^' Seen from the Sun, 
the Earth dwindles away to a mere speck, a mere dust- 
mote glittering in his beams * * ^ Of what conse- 
quence, then, can such an almost imperceptible particle 
be ? One misht think that it could be removed or even 



1. History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, New 
York, 1875, pp. 174-5. 



34 • ASTRONOMY AND 

annihilated, and yet never be missed. Of what conse- 
quence is one of those human monads, of whom more 
than 'a thousand millions swarm on the surface of this 
all but invisible speck, and of a million of whom scarcely 
one will leave a trace that he has ever existed ? Of 
what consequence is man, his pleasures or his pains ?" 

Again, some infidels exclaim : " How can one believe 
that, out of so many millions of enormous worlds, God 
chose this insignificant speck in the universe, to assume 
here human nature ?" 

Our modern infidels seem to imagine that bulk or size, 
not quality, is the standard of excellence. Yet, they 
should not forget that even our prosaic utilitarians con- 
sider a handful of gold worth more than many a moun- 
tain of common useless rock, — and a jewel, as more 
precious than thousands of acres of many a marsh-land. 
Not bulk, but quality, is their standard of value. — Why, 
then, should they blame God, if He also looks more 
to quality than to mere bulk or size ? 

The Sun is, indeed, one of the grandest of visible 
creatures. But what is this burning fire-ball, per- 
fectly unconscious of God or its own existence, com- 
pared with a spiritual, immortal soul that knows and 
loves God ? — Scientists claim that enormous eruptions 
of incandescent vapours, sometimes reaching " an alti- 
tude ten times greater than the diameter of the Earth, 
or, in other words, of 79,000 miles, "^ take place on the 
Sun. A grand and sublime spectacle ! some may say. 



5. Astronomy by J. Rarabosson, p. 83. 



CHKISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 35 

But before God, the simple-hearted prayer of an innocent 
child is more grand, more sublime — and more precious ! 

The venerable Thomas A. Kempis^ remarks : " In- 
deed, an humble husbandman, that serveth God, is better 
than a proud philosopher, who neglecting himself, con- 
siders the course of the heavens." And we may add : 
An innocent child that knows, loves, and serves God, is 
better, and incomparably more precious in the sight of 
God, than millions of burning fire-balls like our Sun, 
that are unconscious of their own existence and of the 
existence of their Creator. 

Whatever infidels may say to the contrary, for all 
Modern Science knows, man may be the moral centre of 
the visible universe in the sight of God. — Although 
man is not the exact physical point around which the 
numberless flaming globes and their satellites revolve, 
yet he is a microcosmos, or miniature world, in whom 
the material and spiritual worlds unite and centre. 

To the objection : " How is it possible to believe that 
God assumed human nature on this little Earth ?" — we 
answer with Dr. Lorinser : * " The incomparably sublime 
and adorable idea which was realized and expressed by 
the Incarnation of God, is but that of an infinite self- 
humiliation of the Divine Majesty, to compensate by 
this infinite humility for the greatness of pride exhibited 
by the rebellion of the creature against his infinitely 
great Creator. Therefore, the main object of the mys- 
tery of the Incarnation of God, as of the work of Re- 
demption in general, is based on humility. Therefore 

3. The Following of Christ, Book I, Chap, ii, 1. 

4. Astronomie, etc., Eeg-ensburg-, 1876, pp. 388-9. 



36 ASTRONOMY AND 

the cradle of the Redeemer was a manger, the house of 
His birth a stable, the city of His birth the little Beth- 
lehem, the least among the cities of Juda. And there- 
fore, we may add, the planet upon which this mystery 
of humility was to be accomplished, was the Earth, this 
little Bethlehem among the sidereal worlds; this manger 
of the universe." 

Infidels may sneer at this idea ; Christians will con- 
sole themselves with the words of the Apostle St. Paul 
to the Corinthians : " The sensual (or animal) man 
perceiveth not the things that are of the spirit of God : 
for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand." 
1 Cor., 1, 14. And again : "The wisdom of this world 
is foolishness with God." Ibid. 3, 19. And again : 
" We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling- 
block, and to the Gentiles foolishness. But to them 
that are called, Christ is the power of God, and the wis- 
dom of God." Ibid. 1, 23, 24. 

4. THE LOCATION OF HEAVEN AND HELL. 

Infidels often assert that Modern Science has refuted 
the Christian idea of. Heaven and hell. . For instance, 
E. DuBois Raymond says of Copernicus, that " he proved 
the non-existence of the so-called empyrean, the sup- 
posed abode of the heavenly hosts. "^ Dr. Draper 
asserts the idea that the Earth is the centre of the 
universe, and man the central object of the Earth, — is 
"the philosophical basis of various revelations," — 
among which he, of course, intends to include especially 
the Christian. Then he adds : " These revelations. 



1. The Popular Science Monthly, June, 1883, p. 249. 



^ CHEISTIAX DOCTKIXES COMPARED. 37 

moreover, declare to him (to man) that above the crys- 
talline dome of the sky is a region of eternal light and 
happiness — Heaven — the abode of God and the angelic 
hosts, perhaps also, his own abode after death ; and 
beneath the Earth, a region of eternal darkness and 
misery, the habitation of those that are evil."^ Accord- 
ing to Dr. Draper, Modern Science has, of course, 
refuted also this Christian idea, — one of the most 
essential. 

Let us see what, according to the opinions of re- 
nowned theologians, the Church really teaches about 
the location of Heaven and hell. 

Dr. J. H. Oswald, one of the most profound and 
reliable theologians of Germany, observes :^ " Christian 
terminology, like the Holy Scriptures, calls the abode of 
the blessed — Heaven ; yet thereby it is not yet decided 
that this signifies a certain location in space ; * * * 
for it is hardly probable, much less proved, that the souls 
of men in their purely spiritual existence, or even in 
their glorified bodies after the resurrection, will be con- 
fined to a certain location in space * * * Heaven 
is, in the first place, to be considered only as a staU of 
the blessed." 

Joannes Perrone, one of the most famous of modern 
Catholic theologians, says of the location of hell : * 
*' This alone is de fide (that is, must be believed by all 
Catholics), that there is a hell, or punishments destined 
for the wicked, and that these will be without end. All 



2. History of the Conflict between Rellffion and Science, p. 153. 

3. Eschatologie, Paderborn, 1869, pp. 38-9. 

4. Pi-aelectiones Theolog-icae, Ratisbonae, IS-^t, vol. v, p. 253. 



38 ASTRONOMY AND 

the rest, as to the location of hell, or the nature of these 
punishments, is not de Jide.''^ — For there exists no final 
decision of the Church on these points. Long before 
so-called Modern Science was heard of, St. Augustin 
remarked^ on hell: "What kind of fire it is, or in 
what part of the world or universe it will be, I think 
no man knows." 

From all this we see that the Church has not yet given 
any final decision as to the location of Heaven and hell ; 
consequently. Modern Science could not refute any 
really Christian doctrine on this point. The Church 
simply teaches that there is a Heaven for the good — 
and a hell for the wicked, where all receive their just 
reward or punishment ; but where these are, is, for the 
present, known to God and those immediately concerned. 
In the boundless universe there is, evidently, place 
enough for both Heaven and hell, — and if Modern 
Science cannot find out exactly where these are, it is 
nothing surprising ; for there are numberless things yet 
nearer home, which Modern Science is unable to fathom. 
For instance, what makes grass grow ? — Or, what makes 
a worm feel ? etc. 

As long as Modern Science is perfectly unable to de- 
cide exactly where the centre of the visible universe is, 
or where its limits are, modern infidels need not be sur- 
prised if they are unable to find out the exact location 
of Heaven or hell ; — about which Divine Revelation did 
not deem it necessary to gratify the curiosity of some peo- 
ple, who would trouble themselves more about the loca- 
tion of Heaven, than about the means of getting there. 

5. De Civitate Dei, Liber 20, Cap. 16. 



CHKISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPAEED. 39 

5. ITN'ITY OF THE VISIBLE UXITEESE. 

In a preceding article we have shown that there exist 
numberless suns, many of them immensely larger than 
our own, and many planets much larger than our Earth ; 
moreover, that these different suns, or, as we often call 
them, fixed stars, are immensely distant from our Earth 
and from one another ; so that even light, which travels 
at a rate of nearly 200,000 miles per second, cannot 
pass within several — perhaps thousands of years — from 
many a star to another, or to our Earth. 

It may be asked : Does there exist some common 
bond between these distant worlds ? Is the universe 
one grand whole — or a conglomerate of worlds, without 
any common ties ? 

Modern Science has proved the words of the English 
poet Alexander Pope, to be true : 

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole." 

All parts of the visible universe are, we may say, 
united with one another by an invisible chain, — the force 
of mutual attraction, or the law of gravitation. This 
law which pervades the whole material universe, 
wherever scientific researches can penetrate to, is com- 
monly explained as follows : " Every particle of matter 
attracts every other particle with a force which varies 
directly as the product of the masses and inversely as 
the square of their distances." Upon this law the cele- 
brated system of Xewton is based, of which J. Ram- 
bosson^ says : " The summary of his system is this : 



1. Astronomy, p. 31, 



40 ASTRONOMY AND 

Just as all weighty bodies gravitate to the Earth's centre, 
so do the bodies which compose the universe (our solar 
system) gravitate, by the force of attraction, towards 
the Sun, which is their common centre. But as the 
planets, if they were only governed by the force of 
attraction — that is to say, by the force which the Sun 
exercised in attracting them towards itself, they would 
gradually be drawn into that celestial body, Newton 
adduced two moving powers given them by the Creator 
at the beginning of the world ; the first, which was a 
centripetal force, impelling the planets towards the Sun ; 
the second, a centrifugal force, which hurried them away 
from it, the one counterbalancing the other. Thus the 
Earth, instead of being carried far away from the Sun 
by the centrifugal force, is maintained by the action of 
the two combined, in its orbit, and compelled to describe 
around it an ellipsis of which it occupies one of the foci." 

Thus we see how Divine Wisdom has united motion 
with stability in the universe, and how true the words 
of Holy Scripture are : " Thou hast ordered all things 
in measure, and number, and weight." Wisdom, 11,21. 

To illustrate this, let us take, for instance, the motion 
of our Earth. It is attracted by the Sun with a certain 
amount of force. If this force alone would operate, 
the Earth would quickly plunge into the Sun. Now, 
this certain force which attracts to the Sun, must be 
counterbalanced by exactly the same amount of force, — 
to keep the Earth from falling into the Sun. This other 
force is called the centrifugal force, and is exactly calcu- 
lated by Divine Wisdom, according to the weight of the 
Earth, its distance from the Sun, and the velocity of its 



CHRISTIAX DOCTKIXES COMPARED. 41 

rotation around the Sun. Were any one of these three 
data materially changed, the Earth Avould either fly 
away from the Sun, or else plunge into it. Were the 
Earth weightier, or its motion quicker, or its distance from 
the Sun greater, its centrifugal force would be greater 
than at present, and it would gradually, in ever enlarg- 
ing orbits, fly away from the Sun into boundless space. 
On the contrary, the Earth would, in ever decreasing 
orbits, Anally jjlunge into the Sun, if either its weight 
were less, its motion slower, or its distance from the Sun 
shorter than it is. 

The same is true of all the planets of our solar system, 
and of all moons in regard to their respective planets. 

Here we see how the heavens show us numberless 
cases of Divine Power and Wisdom. Only the fool can 
say in his heart, there is no God, as the Psalmist ob- 
serves, if he considers how complicated the motions of 
the celestial bodies are, and how exactly their relative 
distances, their masses, and their motions are calculated. 
No fair-minded astronomer can be an infidel. If some 
astronomers are infidels, it is only because they brought 
their prejudiced infidelity into the study of astronomy ; 
but they are not infidels in consequence of their knowl- 
edge of astronomy. 

J. Rombosson"^ remarks : " It is more than a centuiy 
since Lalande had the hardihood to exclaim : ' I have 
examined the whole expanse of the heavens, and I can 
And no trace of God.' And this because he had ob- 
served in every direction the traces of infinite wisdom ! 

2. Asti'onomy, p. 376. 



42 ASTRONOMY AND 

If the universe had been so imperfect that the Almighty- 
was incessantly occupied in replacing the stars in their 
courses, His existence would not be called into question ; 
but because His work bears the impress of infinite wis- 
dom, we adduce that very fact as a reason for contest- 
ing the existence of the maker ! Is it possible to find a 
more striking instance of unreason ? Should we not 
rather feel that the farther the study of the universe is 
carried, the more convincing are the proofs of the 
grandeur and the perfection, not only of it, but of Him 
who created it ?" 

To return to our subject : -That the Newtonian law of 
mutual attraction, or gravitation, exists within our whole 
solar system, no prominent astronomer denies. But 
does this law also govern the sidereal worlds immensely 
beyond our solar system ? 

We reply : The greatest base-line which astronomers 
have, to calculate the distances of remote stars and their 
motions, is the orbit of our Earth. Though this seems 
to be an immense base-line, y^et it is so insignificant as 
to permit the distance of only a few of the more remote 
stars to be measured ; of their motion we know little, or 
nothing. 

Robert S. Ball, Astronomer-Royal of Ireland,^ ob- 
serves : " Except for what the binary stars tell us, we 
would know nothing as to the existence* or the non- 
existence of the law of gravitation beyond the confines 
of the solar system * * * If we know so little about 
the existence of gravitation in the space accessible to 

3. The Popular Science Monthly, May, 1883, pp. 38-39. 



CHEISTIAX DOCTKIXES COMPAEED. 43 

our telescopes, what are we to say of those distant 
regions of space to which our views can never pen- 
etrate ?" 

But, although we have no direct proof, from actual 
observation, we have yet a very strong circumstantial 
evidence that the law of mutual attraction, or gravita- 
tion, exists throughout the whole visible universe. This 
evidence is based on the following facts : In the first 
place, this law exists throughout our whole solar system ; 
in the second place, the sidereal bodies outside of our 
solar system, consist of essentially the same elementary 
constituents as our Earth, Sun, etc. This we know from 
the Spectrum-Analysis. 

A prominent scientist* remarks: "In the largest 
instruments (telescopes) the stars remained diskless, 
never appearing more than as brilliant points * * * 
Of the peculiar nature of these points of light, and of 
what substances they are composed, the Spectrum-Analysis 
alone can disclose to us this much coveted knowledge." 

Rombosson^ says on the same subject : "The result 
of the spectrum studies goes to prove that the stars only 
vary from each other, and from the Sun, in special and 
minor ways, and that there are no important and essen- 
tial differences in their construction. M. Faye, in one 
of his reports to the French Academy of Sciences, says : 
* Thus we see extended to all the stars of the universe 
that unity of composition^ which distinguishes our solar 
world and the aerolites.' " 



4. Spectrum Analysis Explained, Boston, 1872, pp. 131-3. 

5. Astronomy, pp. &i-5. 



44 ASTRONOMY AND 

From this we see how true the words of the English 
poet are of all the visible worlds, no matter how distant : 
''All are but parts of ojie stupendous whole." 

All are composed of essentially the same elements, 
most of which are also found on our Earth, Sun, etc.; 
as, hydrogen, sodium, magnesium, iron, etc.; — and are, 
probably, united with each other by the mysterious 
bonds of mutual attraction. 

As, in the immensity of the visible universe, we may 
study the omnipresence of God, its Creator and Ruler, 
so may we also lind in the unity of the visible universe, 
a proof of the Christian Doctrine expressed by the words 
of the Catholic Creed: "I believe in one God * * * 
the Maker of Heaven and Earth." 

How true, then, are the beautiful words of the Psalm- 
ist : " The heavens show forth the glory of God." — 
18, 1. If one wishes to reflect on the power, wisdom, 
omnipresence and unity of God, let him study astron- 
omy with a pure and candid mind. There he will learn 
to understand the meaning of the words of the Apostle 
to the Romans : " The invisible things of Him, from 
the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being under- 
stood by the things that are made : His eternal power 
also and divinity." 1, 20. 

6. THE FUTURE OF THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE. 

On reflecting on the grand visible universe, the follow- 
ing question may come to our mind : " Will this im- 
mense and beautiful world remain forever as it is, — or 
will it once come to an end ?" 



CHEISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 45 

He that created the universe, and who every moment 
" upholdeth all things by the word of His power, " He- 
brews 1, 3, teaches us : "Heaven and Earth shall pass 
away ; but My word shall not pass away." Matth. 24, 
35. The Apostle St. Paul writes to the Corinthians : 
"The figure of this world passeth away." I, 7, 31. 
The prince of the Apostles writes on the same subject : 
" The day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which 
the heavens shall pass away with great violence ; and 
the elements shall be dissolved with heat ; and the Earth, 
and the works that are in it, shall be burned up * * ^ 
But we look for new heavens and a new Earth, accord- 
ing to His promise, in which justice dwelleth." I. St. 
Peter, 3, 10, 13. Our Lord and Savior foretold : " The 
Sun shall be darkened ; and the Moon shall not give her 
light ; and the stars shall fall from heaven ; and the 
powers of the heavens shall be moved." Matth. 24, 29. 
St. John writes in the Apocalypse, chapter 21 : "And 
I saw a new heaven, and a new Earth. For the first 
heaven and the first Earth was passed away ; and the 
sea is no more. And I John saw the holy city, the 
new Jerusalem, coming down from God and out of 
heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 
And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying : 
Behold the tabernacle of God with men ; and He will 
dwell with them : And they shall be His people : and 
God Himself with them shall be their God : And God 
shall wipe away all tears from their eyes : and death 
shall be no more ; nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow 
shall be any more ; for the former things are passed 



46 ASTRONOMY AND 

away. And He who sat on the throne, said : Behold 
I make all things new." Concerning the new Jerusalem 
St. John adds : " And I saw no temple in it. For the 
Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb. 
And the city needeth not Sun nor Moon to shine in it : 
for the glory of God hath enlightened it ; and the Lamb 
is the lamp thereof. And nations shall walk in the light 
of it." 

From these testimonies of Divine Revelation it ap- 
pears : First, that this present visible universe will not 
remain always as it is, but once it will pass away ; sec- 
ondly, that it will not be annihilated, but dissolved by 
fire ; and thirdly, that a new Earth and visible universe 
will take the place of the present one. 

Now let us see what Modern Science has to say on 
the future of the visible universe. Its verdict is : This 
visible universe carries the germs of dissolution in itself, 
and must necessarily once come to end. 

In the first place, even if no unforseen catastrophe 
should occur, — according to certain physical laws, — no 
matter after how long a time, — the moment would once 
inevitably arrive, when the now blazing stars and our 
fiery Sun would become as cold and frozen, as our Moon 
is at present; just as surely as the moment must once 
arrive for any other fire, no matter how great, to be- 
come extinct. " Hemholtz says : ^ ' The inexorable 
laws of mechanism show that the store of heat in 
the Sun must be finally exhausted.' " Of course, long 
before the Sun would have become entirely cooled, all 



6. Sketches of Creation, New York, 1871, p. 411. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES COMrAEED. 47 

living beings we are acquainted witli, would liave been 
killed by cold on our Earth. 

But some fearful catastrophe may overtake our world 
before the Sun Avill have time to become cold. Prof. 
Winchell "^ calls attention to the remarkable retardations 
observed in the return of the comets of Encke and Faye. 
Some scientists are of the opinion that these retarda- 
tions can be explained only on the assumption that there 
exists some " allpervading resisting medium commonly 
called ether," — the same through which also the light 
of the most distant stars is conveyed to our Earth. 
Prof. Winchell asserts : " The proof of the existence 
of a resisting ether in space, has disclosed the de- 
cree which records the doom of the solar system." 
Whewell remarks : " Since there is such a retarding 
force perpetually acting, however slight it be, it must in 
the end destroy all celestial motion.'^'' * * * Comte 
says : " In a future too remote to be assigned, all the 
bodies of our system must be united to the solar mass, 
from which it is probable they proceeded." 

The verdict of Modern Science, then, is, that accord- 
ing to fixed natural laws now operating, — our Earth, as 
all other planets, must once fall upon the Sun — and 
probably burn to atoms, — even if by that time the Sun 
had already become cool. For, as Prof. Winchell re- 
marks : " Arrested motion becomes heat. A meteorite 
falling through the Earth's atmosphere develops so much 
friction as to generate heat sufficient to dissipate the 



Ibid., pp. 417-20. 



48 ■ ASTRONOMY AND 

body into vapor." ^ How much more the Earth falling 
upon the Sun ! 

But does the resisting ether threaten destruction only 
to our solar system — and not also to the universe out- 
side of it ? 

The same reasons which prove that this resisting ether 
must gradually cause the planets to fall upon the Sun, 
also prove that it must cause the other celestial bodies, 
by retarding their motion, to fall either upon their com- 
mon centre, around which, as some astronomers assume, 
they move, — or upon one another. For, in the first 
place, no doubt, all so-called fixed stars have their own 
peculiar motion, although we can perceive little of it. * 
And, secondly, all move in that resisting ether through 
which their light comes to us. No matter how long it 
may take, — according to fixed physical laws, the balance 
will once be destroyed, which kept the stars in their 
orbits, — and, owing to retarded motion, the stars must 
once rush together towards their common centre, or fall 
upon one another. 

Thus we see that Modern Science agrees with Divine 
Revelation on the following points : First, this visible 
universe will once pass away ; secondly, most probably 
an immense conflagration will take jjlace, by the falling 
of the planets upon the Sun, — or of the stars upon one 
another ; thirdly, according to the generally admitted 
law, " that no particle of matter in the present order of 
nature is destroyed " — a new world will spring from 
the old, — of course, under God's guiding providence. 



i. Ibid., p. 410. 
). See the arti( 
The Popular Science Monthly, December, 1873, pp. 234-33. 



9. See the article "Drifting of the Stars," by R. A. Proctor, iu 
" ' " , D( " ^^ ~ 



CHRISTIAISr DOCTRINES COMPARED. 49 

7, THE THEORY OF LAPLACE ON THE EYOLUTIOX OF 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE. 

Having reflected on the distant future of our visible 
universe, let us next cast a glance at its by-gone ages, — 
compared with which the ages of mankind dwindle into 
insignificant moments. 

Has God created at once the visible universe,' — Sun, 
Moon, and stars, — just as we see them now ? Or have 
they undergone changes, before arriving at their present 
condition ? 

Divine Revelation teaches that God has created all 
things, — but not the manner in which it was done^ 
Hence, Science has here a perfectly free field for in- 
quiry. 

Modern astronomers have generally accepted the so- 
called theory of Laplace, according to which ^ the mat- 
ter of our solar system has existed originally " at such 
a temperature, as to be in the condition of vapor of great 
tenuity." This vapor gradually cooled and contracted, 
and thereby started a rotation which, in the course of 
time, caused rings to form, which separated from the 
main solar mass ; and, being broken at some points, they 
gradually became planets. Other rings separated from the 
planetary masses, and became the satellites, or moons 
of the latter. 

This, in brief, is the famous theory of Laplace. Let 
us see what reasons are advanced in its favor. 

Herbert Spencer ^ observes : " Organic progress con- 
consists in a change from the homogeneous to the hete- 

1. Geology of the Stars. 

3. Progress: Its Law and Cause. 



50 ASTRONOMY AND 

geneous. * * * The series of changes gone through 
during the development of a seed into a tree, or an ovum 
into an animal, constitute an advance from homogeneity 
of structure to heterogeneity of structure. In its pri- 
mary stage, every germ consists of a substance that is 
uniform throughout, both in texture and chemical com- 
positiop. The first step is the appearance of a difference 
between two parts of this substance. * * * This 
process (of differentiation) is continually repeated * * 
* and by endless such differentiations there is finally 
produced that complex combination of tissues and organs 
constituting the adult animal or plant. This is the his- 
tory of all organisms whatever * * * This law of 
©rganic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it 
be in the development of the Earth, in the development 
of life upon its surface, in the development of society, 
of government, of manufactures, of commerce, of lan- 
guagCy literature, science, art, this same evolution of 
the simple into the complex, through successive differ- 
entiations, holds throughout. From the earliest trace- 
able cosmiical changes down to the latest results of 
eivilization, we shall find that the transformation of the 
Soraogeoeous into the heterogeneouSj^ is that in which 
progress essentially consists." 

These words of the famous English thinker, contain 
fn a nutshell the, at present, very popular doctrine of 
evolution ; which is highly extolled by some as a wel- 
come theory, to make the Creator superfluous in the 
universe, — and decidedly combatted by others, as an 
unchristian and atheistic doctrine. 



CHEISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPARED. 51 

What shall we think of it ? No doubt, this doctrine 
has been greatly misused by infidels ; yet, it may be 
substantially correct — and it is not inconsistent with 
any Christian doctrine. In fact, centuries before Herbert 
Spencer, Laplace, or Darwin, saw daylight, the perhaps 
greatest and most philosophic Father of Church, the 
famous St. Augustin, plainly taught, in his work "De 
Oenesi ad Literam," the doctrine of evolution. Dr. 
Carl Guettler ^ says : " The idea of St. Augustin, — that 
matter was originally (created) formless, but endowed 
with the capacity of producing out of itself forms, is 
nothing but the philosophic foundation of the same 
theory (of evolution) which Kant and Laplace, 1400 
years later, applied to Astronomy, and Lamarck and 
Darwin, to organic nature." 

St. Augustin having openly taught the doctrine of 
evolution, no Christian need scruple to accept it, if he 
knows of sufficient reasons in its favor. Because some 
infidels make a bad use of this theory, some overzealous 
Christians imprudently jump to the other extreme, and 
treat it as an infidel invention — hostile to the Christian 
idea of a Creator. This theory is far from detracting 
from the dignity of God as Creator and Ruler of the 
universe ; — on the contrary, it gives to the works of the 
Creator a new and sublimely grand aspect. I, for one, 
heartily agree with Mr. Le Conte, Professor in the Uni- 
versity of California, who observes on the theory of 
Laplace, what may be said of the theory of evolution in 
general : " Does not the cheering doctrine of final 



3. Naturforschung- und Bibel, 1877, p. 55. See also p. 145. 



5 2 ASTRONOMY AND 

causes — of design and purpose — become strengthened 
and invigorated by leading us to a view so comprehen- 
sive ? 'How simple the means — how multiform the 
effects — how far reaching and grand the design !' How 
deeply they impress us with the wisdom, power, and 
glory of the Creator and Governor of the universe !"* 

This much about the theory of evolution in general ; 
now as to the theory of Laplace, — or the theory of evo- 
lution as applied to the sidereal universe, — at least to 
our solar system. 

The Jesuit Father Secchi of the Roman College, both 
one of the greatest modern astronomers and one of the 
most learned Catholic priests of our century, observes 
in his work on the Sun; "Les savants sont de nos 
jours unanimes a admettre que notre systeme solaire 
est du a la condensation d'une nebuleuse qui etendait 
autrefois au-dela des limites occupees actuellement par 
les planetes le plus lointaines." Le Soliel, p. 332 ^ 
" Scientists are, now-a-days, imanimous in admitting that 
our solar system is due to the condensation of a nebula 
which once extended beyond the limits at present occu- 
pied by the most distant planets." 

Since this theory is accepted as well founded as to our 
solar system, we may presume that it also applies to the 
most distant stars ; for they also have a constitution 
quite similar to that of our Sun. 

Let us see on what facts this theory is based. In the 
first place, all the planets revolve around the Sun as 
their centre, — all move from west to east, and in approx- 

4. The Popular Science Monthly, April, 1873, pp. 655-6. 

5. Quoted by Alex. Winchell, in "Geolog-y of the Stars." 



CHEISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPAEED. 53 

imately the same plane. In a similar manner, the moons 
revolve around their respective planets. Moreover, the 
Sun itself revolves around its axis — also from west to 
east; as its so-called spots show. Secondly, in our 
solar system we have illustrations of all stages of plane- 
tary development, — from the blazing Sun, through the 
more or less cooled planets, to the entirely cooled Moon. 
The Earth still retains much of its original heat, as 
volcanoes, hot-springs, etc., prove ; while some of the 
larger planets, Jupiter and Saturn, are still in a state of 
intense heat. — Moreover, the rings of Saturn, the vari- 
ous moons, and the orbits of the planets, indicate a reg- 
ular, successive evolution of our solar system from 
primeval matter. And last, but not least, modern 
Astronomy has discovered gaseous nebulae, — such as 
Laplace's theory postulated. These nebulae are so 
far away, that we have no means of getting an idea of 
their distance. Perhaps it takes their light many thous- 
ands of years to reach our globe ; perhaps, they have 
long ago ceased to be nebulae, and become suns like 
ours, and we see them yet on Earth, as they were 
thousands of years ago, — perhaps soon after creation. 

According to the opinion of the learned Jesuit 
Father Secchi,^ the discovery of these nebulae has con- 
firmed, if not proved, the theory of Laplace. There is 
no reason why any Christian should be hostile to this 
theory. Whatever some shortsighted infidels may say, 
this theory does not exclude, but on the contrary im- 
plies the guiding providence of the Creator, Who has, 



6. See Geology of the Stars, by Prof. Winchell. 



54 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

in this simple manner, produced the most stupendous 
and complicated effects, — and carried out His "far 
reaching and grand design." 



IV. GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY. 

1. THE SIX SO-CALLED DAYS OF CREATION. 

"I FAYING declared that God created both the heav- 
ens and the Earth, the Bible relates the gradual 
perfection and ornamentation of our globe, up to the 
time of the creation of man. Here the Bible dis- 
tinguishes six different periods of time, called " Days." 

On the first Day, light and darkness, day and night 
commenced to alternate ; on the second, the vast expanse 
Ave call the firmament, which separates the waters of the 
clouds from the waters on the surface of the Earth, be- 
came discernable ; on the third, dry land began to emerge 
from the waters that covered the Earth ; and, finally, 
on the fourth Day, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, 
became visible on the surface of the Earth. 

Moreover, after the Earth was sufficiently prepared to 
receive organic beings, plants appeared on the third 
Day ; animals living in water, and birds, on the fifth 
Day ; animals living on dry land — and finally man, on 
the sixth Day. 

Now, what have our modern unbelievers to object 
against these six so-called Days ? They say : Long 
before the first man existed, — thousands of years before, 



COMPARED WITH CHRISTIA:?ir DOCTRINES. 55 

— the Earth had been filled with countless species of 
plants and animals, as theii* abundant remains in ancient 
rocks testify ; therefore, the Bible is greatly mistaken 
in teaching that all this could have happened within the 
short time of six days. 

Our modern infidels must be told again and again, 
that the Bible does not say what kind of Days these six 
were, or how long they lasted. 

Let it be remembered that these Days were not days 
of man, — who was created at the end of the last of these 
six Days, but days of God, the Creator, — before whom 
" a thousand years are as one day," (I. Peter, 3, 8) ; in 
comparison with whose eternity, the longest periods of 
time imaginable dwindle into insignificance. The seventh 
Day, on which, as the Bible, Genesis, 2, 2, relates, 
God finished the work of creation, and rested, still con- 
tinues, after thousands of years ; the Bible gives no 
intimation of its having ended. 

Why, then, could not the other six Days also have 
lasted for thousands of years ; which to mortal man may 
seem an immense period, but which are to an eternal 
God less than a day to us ? That the Bible, in using in 
Genesis I. the word " Day," does not teach it was a 
duration of time of twenty-four hours, may be inferred 
from Genesis 2, 1-4, where we read : "So the heavens 
and the Earth were finished, and all the furniture (or 
ornament — " ornatus," as the Vulgate has it) of them. 
* * * These are the generations of the heaven and 
the Earth, when they were created in the Day that the 
Lord God made the heavens and the Earth." Here we 



56 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

see the word " Day " used in the sense of a period of 
time, including all those " six Days." We are, there- 
fore, justified in assuming that the Bible, in speaking 
of those "six Days," did not speak of a duration of 
time of only twenty-four hours, but of indefinite periods 
of time, that lasted for, what we would call, many 
ages ; — whose " evenings " and " mornings," — begin- 
nings and endings, may have lasted longer than all the 
historical ages of mankind. 

For such reasons, not only the learned ancient Jewish 
writer Philo, but also ancient Christian writers, as Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, Origen, and Procopius, considered 
those six Days not as ordinary days of twenty-four hours, 
but as periods of time of unknown duration. The Church 
has never given any decision on this point, and so 
we are free to say, as the great teacher St. Augustin, 
who lived about fifteen centuries ago, said: "What 
kind of Days they are, is either most difficult or im- 
possible for us to guess ; how much more so to decide." 

Therefore Christians, as far as their religion is con- 
cerned, need not object, if modern scientists teach that 
many thousands of years ago, — long before the first man 
appeared, — the Earth had been filled with countless 
species of plants and animals. 

2. THE ORIGIN OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OP THE 
CREATION. 

To understand correctly the history of the Creation, 
as related in the first chapter of the Inspired Book, it is 
necessary to consider the origin of the so-called Mosaic 
Account. 



COMPARED WITH CHRISRIAJs^ DOCTRINES. o7 

That the Book of Genesis is one of the books written 
under the inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, has always 
been the doctrine of the Church. ISTow, as theologians 
teach, the Spirit of Truth may have impelled inspired 
writers to write down correctly, either some revealed 
truths which God alone could know, — or some truths or 
facts, which the inspired writers themselves had learned. 
For instance, the Evangelists were impelled by the Holy 
Spirit to write down concerning Jesus, what they them- 
selves had either seen, or heard of others ; whereas, St. 
John, in describing in the Apocalypse the future history 
of the Church on Earth, from the Apostolic times till to 
her final triumph in Heaven, wrote something which no 
man could have known ; which, consequently, the Spirit 
of God must have revealed to him. 

Now, does the Mosaic Account of the Creation relate 
what the inspired writer himself, or any other reliable 
person, had witnessed ; or does it contain a revelation 
from God of truths unknown to man ? Evidently the 
latter. Man having been created last of the visible 
world, he could not have witnessed the acts of creation, 
that preceded his own creation. Nor have we any rea- 
son for assuming that thousands of years ago mankind 
had already made such progress in natural sciences, that 
they could give such an accurate account of the pro- 
gressive stages of the creation of our Earth, as we find 
in the Book of Genesis. 

To whom did God make this revelation ? Perhaps to 
Moses, during the forty days when he was on Mount 
Sinai with the Lord, — or, at some other time, in the 



58 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

desert ? Perhaps. — But, most probably, this revelation 
was first made to Adam, after his creation. This 
view which is held, among others, by the learned Jesuit- 
Father F. von Humnielauer, is corroborated by the fact 
that, as Dr. Lueken in his " Stiftungs-Urkunde des 
Menschengeschlechts " shows, this Account of the Cre- 
ation was known not only to the Israelites, but, we may 
say, to all ancient nations. This can be explained only 
on the assumption that this Account reaches back to 
the source of all nations — the first parents, — and that it 
was preserved by the traditions of the various nations, 
until, finally, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, 
it was written down in the Book of Genesis by Moses. 
The learned Jesuit-Father mentioned before, explains 
the origin of the Mosaic Account of the Creation sub- 
stantially as folloAvs : Since no man had witnessed the 
acts of creation (man having been created last), the 
Account of the Creation we find in Genesis, Chapter I., 
necessarily postulates a divine revelation. To whom 
was this revelation made ? The Book of Genesis re- 
lates (2, 3)^that, on the seventh Day of creation, the law 
of keeping the Sabbath holy Avas instituted. This law 
stands in such an intimate connection with the "six 
Days of Creation," that we are justified in assuming 
that the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, was 
given to Adam at the same time when the history of 
creation was revealed to him. The traditions of the 
most ancient nations unanimously point to the fact that 
this revelation was originally made known to all man- 
kind. . These traditions agree, not only in the leading 



COMPAEED WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES. 59 

ideas, but also in minute details, with, the account writ- 
ten in the Book of Genesis (as Dr. Lueken has clearly 
shown in his work, " Die Stiftungsurkunde des Men- 
schengeschlechts"). The Account of the Creation we 
have, seems, therefore, to be the description of a vision 
ichich Adam had, wherein the acts of creation were shown 
to him by God. Under the representation of Days, the 
long geological ages were shown to Adam. In ecstacy, 
as St. Paul, when Paradise was shown to him, I. Cor. 12, 
or as St. John, when the future history of the Church 
was revealed to him, Apoc. 1, 10, Adam witnessed the 
progress of creation. At the icord of God, he saw light 
penetrating the darkness surrounding the Earth ; he saw 
an expanse, called the firmament, forming between the 
waters on the Earth and the waters in the clouds ; he saw 
dry land emerge from the waters covering our globe ; 
he saw plants and trees commencing to grow ; he saw 
the Sun, Moon, and stars, sending their first rays to the 
surface of the Earth ; he saw animals of every descrip- 
tion moving in the waters and springing from the soil ; 
and, finally, he saw in this vision the process of his own 
creation. The horizon of his vision was most probably 
limited. Likely he did not see the progressive perfec- 
tion of the whole surface of the Earth, from pole to pole. 
What was shown to him, was, probably, only a certain 
country of Asia, the Land of Eden ; the same, where he 
found himself after awaking from this ecstacy, or vision. 
The successive acts of God, then, in making this country, 
the first to be inhabited, a fit abode for man, were shown 
to Adam in six grand panoramic views. 



60 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

Now, a very important question is the following : 
Are we obliged to assume, because to Adam these cre- 
ative acts were thus shown, that they extended over the 
whole globe in the same relative succession ? 

Father von Hummelauer ^ is of the opinion that al- 
though the history of the creation of the Earth may 
have been represented thus in six grand views to Adam, 
yet it is not necessary to assume that all over the Earth 
the same series of events succeeded each other in the 
order mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Per- 
haps, in some places aquatic animals were created on the 
third day ; perhaps, in some places, fowl appeared on 
the fourth day ; perhaps, in some places, even animals 
liv-ing on land, appeared on the fourth day. 

The point of view, then, which we must not lose sight 
of, is : Adam saw in a vision the successive acts of cre- 
ation in the order they succeeded each other in the Land 
of Eden, the first home of mankind ; but that these 
acts of creation extended in the same order all over the 
globe, we are not compelled to assume from the Ac- 
count of the Creation given by the Bible. 

Moreover, since it was not the object of God's Reve- 
lation to give mankind a scientific instruction on the 
origin of the Earth and all vegetable and animal species 
that ever existed, but only to instruct man that God is 
the Creator of the whole visible universe, — we may as- 
sume that not the origin of all species of plants and 
animals that ever had existed in the Land of Eden, but 
the origin of only those species of plants and animals 



1. Der biblesche Schoepfung-sbericht, Freiburg, 1877. 



COMPARED WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 61 

which still existed at the time of Adam, were shown to 
him in the vision. 

This vision of Adam was handed down by tradition 
among his descendants, till Moses, inspired and guided 
by the Spirit of God, recorded it for the instruction of 
all future mankind. Hence it is often called the Mosaic 
Account of the Creation. 

Such, then, is the theory held by some prominent the- 
ologians. Of course, it is a " theory," or hypothesis ; 
yet such solid reasons seem to be in its favor, that it 
may be considered as one of the most plausible theories 
which have been advanced, to serve as a key for the 
explanation of the Biblical history of the Creation. 

Without claiming this to be the only theory — for 
there are yet others — on which the Mosaic Account of 
the Creation and the results of Modern Science can be 
satisfactorily reconciled, — we shall adopt it for the 
present in the following explanations. 

3. THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION COMPARED 

WITH THE RESULTS OF MODERN SCIENTIFIC 

INVESTIGATIONS. 

After declaring in a few words, that God in the 
beginning, created the inorganic elements of the heav- 
ens and of the Earth, Moses turns his entire attention 
to the history of the gradual perfection and ornamenta- 
tion of our globe. The first condition of the Earth 
which he describes, was as follows ; " The Earth was 
void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the 
deep : and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. 
And God said : Be light made. And light was made. 



62 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

And God divided the light from the darkness. And He 
called the light Day and the darkness Night." Genesis 
1, 2-5. This was the 

FIRST DAY 

of the gradual perfection of the Earth. 

With what stage of the evolution of our globe, ac- 
cording to the results of modern scientific investigations, 
does this " first Day " correspond ? 

The reader will remember that according to the theory 
of Laplace, now generally accepted among scientists, 
our Earth was once in an incandescent state, as the Sun 
is still. At that time, the Earth was a shining sun, and 
no difference of day and night could be noticed on its 
surface. But since the Earth is by far smaller than the 
Sun, she, in the course of time, lost her heat sooner, and 
ceased to be self-luminous ; whilst the Sun still con- 
tinues to shine in all his brightness. In proportion as the 
Earth lost her billiant glare, dense vapors, arising from 
the intensely hot surface, commenced to surround 
her. Then, first, the alternation of day and night (of 
light and darkness) could be noticed. But the dense 
vapors, surrounding the Earth, m.ade the Sun, Moon and 
stars, yet for ages, invisible from the surface of our globe. 
Prof. Winchell ^ remarks of this period : " The Sun 
rose in the morning, and sent a lurid ray through the 
dense, refractive atmosphere, and at night sank into the 
smoke that ascended from a burning world. The morn- 
ing and evening twilight almost met each other in the 



Sketches of Creation. 



COMPARED WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 63 

midnight zenith, so high and refractive was the hetero- 
geneous atmosphere." 

This stage, then, of the Earth's development, seems 
to have been the first Day, described in Genesis 1, 3-5. 

THE SECOND DAT 

is thus described by Moses : " God made a firmament, 
and divided the waters that were under the firmament, 
from those that were above the firmament." Genesis 1,7. 

It must be remembered that, according to the theory 
of Laplace, the Earth, after ceasing to be a self-lumin- 
ous body, and being surrounded by dense vapors, yet for a 
long time retained such a high temperature on her sur- 
face, as to change water and other volatile substances 
into hot vapors. All the water, carbon, sulphur, etc., on 
the Earth, were converted into vapors, which continually 
ascended from the heated surface of our globe to the 
cooler heights of the atmosphere, to return again in a 
condensed shape, and to undergo anew the former 
changes, as soon as they came near enough to the hot 
surface of our globe. 

Thus for a geological age a violent storm, caused by 
the intense heat of our planet and the cold existing be- 
yond its atmosphere, continued to rage and to fill all 
space between the two thermal extremes with confusion. 

Consequently, then the expanse, or what we call the fir- 
mament, which at present separates the waters upon the 
Earth from the waters in the clouds, did not yet exist. 
"The first drop of water," Louis Figuier remarks,^ "which 
fell upon the still heated terrestrial sphere, marked a new 

3. The World before the Delug-e, New York, 1873. 



64 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

period in its evolution * * * How long did this struggle 
for supremacy between fire and water continue ? All that 
can be said in reply is, that a time came, when water 
was triumphant. After having covered vast areas on the 
surface of the Earth, it finally occupied and entirely cov- 
ered the whole surface * * * The ocean was universal." 
The more the cooling of our globe went on, the more, 
gradually, that expanse, often called the firmament, be- 
came discernible, of which the Bible says that on " the 
second Day" it "divided the waters that were under the 
firmament, from those that were above the firmament," 
— that is, the waters on the surface of our globe — from 
the waters in the clouds. 

OF THE THIRD DAY 

the Book of Genesis relates : " God said : Let the waters 
that are under the heaven, be gathered into one place : 
and let the d»y land appear. And it was so done." 
Genesis 1,9. — As mentioned before, there was a time 
when, according to the opinion of geologists, the surface 
of our Earth was entirely covered with water ; yet, under 
God's guiding providence, dry land, the future abode of 
mankind, was, in the course of time, to emerge from the 
waters. — A crust, covered with water, had been formed 
on the surface of our globe. But since the refrigeration, 
or loss of heat, continued as Prof. Winchell observes, 
the stiffening crust would become too large for the 
nucleus within. The crust, therefore, must wrinkle, to 
fit the shrinking nucleus. Thus, incipient inequalities of 
the surface began to appear. — These were the germs of 
mountains and of continents, which in the course of ages 



COMPARED AVITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 65 

gradually became larger. Thus, as the Book of Genesis 
relates, the waters gathered together (into oceans, etc.), 
and dry land began to appear. 

ox THE FOURTH DAY, 

according to the Hebrew text and the Vulgate transla- 
tion, God said : " Let there be lights (iiant luminaria) 
in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the 
night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for 
days and years. And God made two great lights : a 
greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule 
the night : and the stars." Genesis 1, 14, 16. 

Let it be remembered, the Bible teaches that God, in 
the beginning, had created the heavens and the Earth, — 
that is the elements of our Earth — and of the Sun, Moon, 
and stars; — but these became visible on the surface of our 
present globe only on and since the fourth Day. — We 
may therefore assume that long before the fourth Day 
these celestial bodies had existed, perhaps, about in 
the same perfection as at present, yet, before the "fourth 
Day " they could hot be seen on the surface of our Earth, 
since she was still surrounded by dense vapors and clouds, 
which prevented the rays of sidereal bodies from pene- 
trating to her surface. 

The Earth continued to lose her silrface-heat ; the 
rising vapors grew less ; and the dense, dark clouds 
gradually disappeared and permitted the light of the out- 
side worlds to reach the very surface of our globe. Then 
the normal relations between our Earth and the Sun, 
Moon, and the stars, commenced to exist, as described, 
Gen. 1, 14, 16. 



QQ GEOLOGY AND TALEOXTOLOGY 

From this we see how admirably the results of Mod- 
ern Science agree with what the Bible teaches on the 
gradual development, or perfection of our globe, and its 
relations to other sidereal bodies. 

But our Earth is not only a globe consisting of vari- 
ous inorganic, elementary masses, but also the abode 
and substratum of organic beings, plants and animals, 
— with their visible crown — man. What, then, have 
Modern Science and the Bible to say on the appearance 
of plants, animals, and man, on our globe ? 

The Book of Genesis 1, 11-27, teaches that, after dry 
land had apj^eared on the third Day, God said : 
*' Let the Earth bring forth the green herb, and such as 
may seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its 
kind." On the fifth Day, after the Sun, Moon, and 
stars, had become visible in all their brightness upon 
the surface of the Earth, God said : " Let the waters 
bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the 
fowl." On the sixth Day, God said : " Let the Earth 
bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle, and 
creeping things, and beasts of the Earth according to 
their kinds." Finally, God said : " Let us make man to 
our image and likeness : and let him have dominion 
over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, 
and the beasts, and the whole Earth, and every 
creeping creature that moveth upon the Earth." 
According to the account of the Bible, then, the 
order in which organic and living beings appeared 
on the Earth, was as follows : Plants appeared first, — 
on the third Day ; next appeared animals living in 



COMPARED WITH CHKISTIAX DOCTRINES. 6< 

water, and fowl, — on the fifth Day ; then appeared 
animals living on land, and, finally, man, — on the sixth 
Day. 

Let us see what Modern Science has to say on this 
subject. — Mr. Archibald Geikie^ calls attention to the 
Tolcanoes, the hot springs, and the increase of tempera- 
ture towards the centre of the Earth, which seem to in- 
dicate — " that the inside of our planet must be in an in- 
tensely heated condition ; " in fact, if, as obsei-A'ation 
seems to establish, " the temperature rises about 1 degree 
Fahrenheit for every fifty or sixty feet of descent," — 
then it is quite probable that "at the depth of about 
two miles water would be at its boiling-point, and at 
depths of twenty-five or thirty miles, the metals would 
have the same temperatures as those at which they re- 
spectively melt on the surface of the Earth." The 
same author continues : " There can be no doubt that, 
at one time, many millions of years ago, the globe was 
immensely hotter than it is now. In fact, it then re- 
sembled our burning sun, of which it once probably 
formed a part, and from which it and the other planets 
were one by one detached. During the vast inteiwal 
which has passed away since then, it has been gradually 
cooling, and thus the heat on the inside is only the re- 
mains of that fierce heat which once marked the whole 
planet. The outer parts have cooled and become solid, 
but they are bad conductors of heat, and allow the heat 
from the inside to pass away into space only with ex- 
treme slowness." 



3. Geolog-y, New York, 1883, pp. 84-89. 



68 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

Keeping these facts in mind, one will easily perceive 
that there must have been a time once, — and a long 
time — when nothing living, plant or animal, could have 
existed on our Earth : the intense heat would have mel- 
ted every organic being to atoms. — Before organic be- 
ings, plants or animals, such as we are acquainted with^ 
could exist on our globe, it was necessary that its surface 
should have cooled considerably. At what time exactly, 
the first microscopic plants or animalculae could appear 
on Earth, we know not ; all what scientific re- 
searches teach on this point, is, that in those rocks which 
were once in a molten state, we would look iil vain for 
vestiges of either plants or animals ; such are found only 
in rocks of later formations — in rocks that were formed 
by the sediments of water. Of course, the relatively 
lower the strata of these sedimentary rocks are, the 
more ancient they are, as also the remains of plants and 
animals imbedded therein. 

In what order ^ then, as far as ice can learn from 
remains imbedded in these rocks, did organic beings appear 
on our globe f Louis Figuier, in the work mentioned 
before, remarks : " Did plants precede animals ? We 
know not ; but such would appear to have been the 
order of creation. It is certain that in the sediments of 
the oldest seas and in the vestiges which remain to us 
of the earliest ages of organic life on the globe, we 
find both plants and animals of advanced organizations. 
But, on the other hand, during the greater part of the 
primary epoch — especially during the carboniferous age 
— the plants are particularly numerous, and terrestrial 



COMPARED WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 69 

animals scarcely show themselves ; this would lead us 
to the conclusion that plants preceded animals. It may 
"be remarked, besides, that from their cellular nature, and 
their looser tissues composed of elements readily 
affected by the air, the first plants could be easily des- 
troyed without leaving any material vestiges ; from 
which it may be concluded, that, in those primitive 
times, an immense number of plants existed, no traces 
of which now remain to us." Professor Winchell in 
Tiis " Sketches of Creation " declares it " unsafe to 
determine at which epoch the waters of the primeval 
sea became sufficiently cooled and purified to receive 
the first organic forms." * * * But, " reasoning 
•deductively, it is presumable that vegetable life preced- 
ed animal life in order of appearance." — For " vegetable 
life is capable of enduring more extreme conditions. 
Vegetation, moreover, is capable of drawing its suste- 
nance from the mineral world, while animals rely 
-exclusively upon organic food.'''' 

Therefore, the scientist just mentioned concludes : 
*" All things considered, we are led to believe that plant 
life had a history upon our Earth, a full epoch before 
the existence of the lowest animal." 

Thus we see, how the results of modern scientific 
investigations establish what Moses, inspired by God, 
taught thousands of years ago, namely, that plants 
were created before animals. 

But it is to be mentioned that in the lowest (oldest) 
strata, wherein remains of organized beings are found, 
as also in the succeeding and later strata, up to the time of 



70 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLO(tY 

man, remains of plants and animals are found together y 
not plants alone first, and animals later, as one would,. 
at first sight, be inclined to expect from the account 
given by Moses, who relates that God created the plants, 
on the third, — and the animals on the fifth and sixth 
Days. 

" It is now well known," Mr. Ingersoll observes, * 
" that the organic history of the Earth can properly be 
divided into five epochs — the Primordeal, Primary, 
Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary. Each of these 
epochs is characterized by animal and vegetable life,. 
peculiar to itself. It is reasonable to suppose that cer- 
tain kinds of vegetation, and certain kinds of animals, 
should exist together, and that, as the character of the 
vegetation changed, a corresponding change would take 
place in the animal world." 

How can this seeming contradiction between the 
Mosaic account, which describes the plants as having 
been created on the third Day— and the animals, on 
the fifth and sixth Days — be reconciled with the 
results of paleontological researches, according to which, 
as also Father von Hummelauer observes, ^ " every new 
geological epoch had a flora and fauna (species of plants, 
and animals) corresponding with the existing climatic 
conditions"? 

We must remember, Divine Revelation did not intend 
to give man a scientific instruction on the precise order 
in which plants and animals appeared all over the 
globe ; its main object was to teach man that God 

4. Some Mistakes of Moses, Washington, D. C., 1882, pp. 69, 70.. 

5. Der Biblische Schoepf ungsbericht, 



COMPARED WITH CHRISKIAX DOCTRIXES. 7l 

is the Creator of all things visible ; and this object 
was completely attained by revealing the different acts 
of creation, — in six grand panoramic views, which had 
probably been shown to Adam in a vision. Dr. Guett- 
ler^ j^^stly observes: "Whether the Sun appeared in 
its full brightness before or after the plants ; whether 
the animals were created after the plants, or not ; how 
long those " Days " lasted ; how they coexisted or 
succeeded one another, — all these are questions of minor 
importance to the Bible (or Divine Revelation). The 
main object of the Bible is to represent to us clearly, in 
different acts, God as the Creator of the whole world." 

Some unbelievers ridicule Moses for relating the 
creation of the plants before the Sun was visible on the 
Earth. Mr. Ingersoll ^ remarks : " It does not seem to 
me that grass and trees could grow and ripen into seed 
and fruit without the Sun. * * * After the world 
was covered with vegetation, it occurred to Moses that 
it was about time to make a Sun and Moon." 

Here Mr. Ingersoll again betrays a good deal of 
unfairness. Scientists of the highest standing agree 
that the Earth was covered with the most luxuriant veg- 
etation, long before any ray of the Sun could penetrate 
the dense atmosphere which surrounded our globe. 
When the heat of the Sun's rays was not yet felt upon 
the Earth, her own internal heat sufficed to call forth a 
tropical flora, even where now everlasting ice and snow 
reign. 



6. Naturforschung- und Bibel. 

7. Some Mistakes of Moses, pp. 68, 73. 



12 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

Louis Figuier observes^ on this subject: "It is a 
remarkable circumstance that conditions of equable and 
warm climate, combined with humidity, do not seem to 
have been limited to any one part of the globe, but the 
temperature of the whole globe seems to have been 
nearly the same in very different latitudes. From the 
Equatorial regions up to Melville Island, in the Artie 
Ocean, where, in our day, eternal frost prevails, — from 
Spitzbergen to the centre of Africa, the carboniferous 
flora is identically the same. When nearly the same 
plants are found in Greenland and Guinea ; when the 
same species, now extinct, are met with of equal 
development at the equator and the pole, we cannot but 
admit that at this epoch the temperature of our globe 
was nearly alike everywhere. There seems to have been 
then only one climate over the whole globe. * * * 
Whence then proceeded this general superficial warmth, 
which we now regard with so much surprise ? — It was a 
consequence of the greater or nearer influence of the 
interior of the globe. The Earth was still so hot in 
itself, that the heat which reached it from the Sun may 
have been inappreciable. * * * Xo flower yet 
adorned the foliage or varied the tints of the forests. 
Eternal verdure clothed the branches of the Ferns, the 
Lycopods, and Equiseta, which composed, to a great 
extent, the vegetation of the age. * * * JSTo food 
appeared fit for nourishment. * ^f^ * A damp atmos- 
phere, of an equal rather than an intense heat like that 
of the tropics, a soft light veiled by permanent fogs, 



The World before the Deluge, pp. 133, 13T, 151. 



CHKISTIAN D0CTEI:N^ES COMPARED. 73 

were favourable to the growth of this peculiar vegeta- 
tion, of which we search in vain for anything strictly 
analogous in our own days. The nearest approach to 
the climate and vegetation proper to the geological 
period which now occupies our attention, would probably 
b)e found in certain islands, or on the littoral of the 
Pacific Ocean — the island of Chloe, for example, where 
it rains during 300 days of the year, and ichere the light 
of the Sun is shut out hy perpetual fogs?^ 

Dr. Lorinser remarks ^ on the appearance of plants 
before the Sun: "It is most probable that formerly 
the condition of the atmosphere was such that what we 
now call a clear sky, was then impossible. The air was 
filled with carbonic acid, and the great internal heat of 
the Earth continually caused dense vapors to rise from 
the waters, which formed such masses of clouds and 
fog, that the sidereal globes (Sun, etc.,) remained veiled 
to the surface of the Earth. The coal period caused an 
important change : the great absorption of carbonic 
acid by the luxuriant plants of the coal period, helped 
greatly to clear the sky. Perhaps this was even the 
main object of this grand vegetation. Consequently, 
the work of the third Day was in casual connection with 
the appearance of the Sun and the other sidereal bodies. 
Therefore, the appearance of these could not be men- 
tioned in a chronologically more appropriate place, 
than immediately after the creation of the plants." 

We may add, although the creation of the plants is 
ascribed to the third Day, we are not obliged to 



9. Geolog-ie und Paleontolog'ie. 



<4 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

infer from this, that no new species of plants appeared 
after the third Day. We may say, with Dr. Lueken :^* 
" The Bible mentions only the first appearance (Grund- 
legung) of every new element in creation. What the 
created, natural forces, inherent in these elements, may 
have changed or transformed, within their fixed limits, 
is not the object of the doctrine of Creation to reveal. 
* * * Since the plants, more than other organisms, 
are completely dependent on the soil and climate, we 
may expect only a gradual transition to our present 
•flora, namely, as soil, climate, and air gradually arrived 
at their present condition." 

The same, substantially, may be said of the creation 
of the animals, mentioned on the fifth and sixth Days, 

These explanations will suffice to show that, in spite 
of seeming contradictions, real harmony exists between 
the Mosaic record and the results of modern scientific 
investigations. 

Both Moses and modern scientists teach : 1. That 
the Earth was once " void and empty," without plants, 
animals, or man, and covered with darkness, — dense 
vapors arising from the hot surface of our globe. 2. 
Then, as Prof. Winchell observes, " the Sun in the 
morning sent a lurid ray through the dense atmosphere, 
and at night sank (apparently, looked at from the sur- 
face of our globe) into the smoke that ascended from 
a burning world ;" or as Moses teaches, — God divided 
the light from the darkness, — day and night began to 
alternate. 3. Next, the expanse, or firmament, which 



]0. Die Stif tungsurkunde des Menscheng-eschlechts, Freibui'g", 1876. 



COMPARED AVITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. tO 

separates the waters on the Earth from the waters in the 
clouds, became discernabl e. 4. After this, diy land 
emerged from the warm oceans that covered the Earth ; 
and finally the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in all their bright- 
ness, became visible from the surface of the Earth ; the 
dense, dark atmosphere having gradually disappeared. 
5. After the surface of the earth was sufiiciently cooled 
and prepared, the first organisms appeared, — plants be- 
fore animals. 

The order in which animals appeared, was, according 
to Moses : First, the animals living in water, and the 
birds ; next, the animals living on dry land ; and finally, 
man. The same is taught by Modern Science. Prof. 
Winchell observes," on the succession of animal life on 
Earth : " Life has presented itself * * * in a suc- 
cession of dominent idecis, each in its own way express- 
ing itself in more than one organic type. Thiis, in the 
reign of 7'eptiles, the reptilian idea was dominant, and 
we find it invading the structure of the contemporane- 
ous y?s/ies. Afterward the ovia7i or ornithic (hird-lil'e) 
idea became dominant, and the reptiles were endowed 
with wings. Still later the mamrnalian idea became 
dominant." 

Here we find the same order in the succession of 
animal types given, which we find indicated in the 
Mosaic Record. — Thus we see that there exists an 
admirable harmony between Moses and Modern Science. 
— Wherein Moses differs from the latter, may be easily 
accounted for, if we consider the different stand-points 



11. Sketches of Creation. 



<b BIOLOGY AND 

from which Moses and Modern Science view the same 
work of creation. — The object of Modern Science is to 
give an exact scientific account of the relative co-exist- 
ence or succession of plants and animals upon the Earth. 
— Moses, on the other hand, whose main and only object 
here was, to teach mankind that God is the Creator of all 
organic beings^ considered it sufficient, for his purpose, to 
mention the different acts of the creation of all kinds 
of plants and animals. 



V. BIOLOGY. 

1. THE APPEARANCE OF ORGANIC AND LIVING BEINGS 
ON THE EARTH. 

ny/TR. INGERSOLL observes: "There must have 
been a time when plants and animals did not 
exist upon this globe." 

Certainly, on this point all agree — Moses and 
modem scientists. Moses mentions expressly that the 
Earth was once "void and empty," Genesis 1, 2; — 
that is, without plants that adorned, or living beings 
that inhabited it ; and scientific men say that not only 
the Earth but the whole visible universe was once in an 
intensely hot state, which would have made all life, we 
are acquainted with, impossible. — Therefore, also the 
theory of Thompson and Helmholz, ^ that the germs of 
the first living or organic beings came with meteors 
from other parts of the universe upon our Earth, does 



1. Natiirforschnng und Bit el, von C. Guettler, p. 133. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 77 

not bring us any nearer to the solution of the question 
as to the origin ot life. Even if we would admit the 
theory just mentioned — what we are by no means 
inclined to do — the question would still remain to be 
answered : " How did the germs of living beings get 
on those meteors, the elementary constituents of which 
must, according to the theory of Laplace, once have 
been in such a state of tenuity and incandescence as to 
make the existence of all germs of life, Science knows 
anything of, impossible ? " 

Where, then, did the first plants and animals come 
from ? — Infidels assume, as a matter of course, that they 
must have in some way sprung from pre-existing inorganic 
matter alone ; else they would be compelled to 
admit a Creator. This idea would, of course, be shock- 
ing to them. — Mr. Ingersoll in Some Mistakes of Moses, 
declares : " This is so grossly improbable, so at 
variance with the experience and observation of man- 
kind (as if mankind had been present at the first acts of 
creation I ), that it cannot be adopted without abandon- 
ing forever the basis of scientific thought and action." 
— Mr. Ingersoll assumes that the denial of the Creator 
is that " basis." — Yet on this point he is at variance Avith 
men greater than himself. As Mr. Ingersoll, also other 
unbelievers assume that organic and living beings must 
have sprung — they do not know how; — from inroganic 
matter without any outside influence ; — for else they 
would have to admit a Creator ! 

Infidels, moreover, go on assuming that the first living 
organisms commenced and continued to develope them- 



78 BIOLOGY AND 

selves, of course, without the help of a Creator, until 
finally the present world was evolved, with all its plants, 
animals, and man. 

Moses took the liberty to differ on these points with 
our infidels ; for he not only insinuates, but expressly 
teaches that God, the Creator, had something to do 
with bringing into existence the plants, animals, and 
finally man. We read in the book of Genesis : " God 
said : ' Let the Earth bring forth the green herb, * * * 
the fruit tree, etc' " Now, who is right : Moses, or 
Mr. Ingersoll and other infidels ? — What does true 
Science, — which is not to be confounded with the bold 
assertions of such infidels as Ingersoll, Buechner, 
Haeckel, etc., teach on this subject ? 

Although the inmost nature of inorganic matter and 
force, as all profound scientists confess, is still as much 
a mystery as ever, yet that much, at least, Modern 
Science has established, that there is no proof that 
organized life of any kind ever sprang from inorganic 
matter alone. Before the discovery of the microscope, 
it was assumed by some naturalists, that lower kinds of 
plants and animals may be produced from inorganic 
matter. The authoric^y of Aristotle induced even such 
great men as St. Augustin, Peter Lombard, St. 
Thomas of Aquin, and the Scholastics of the Middle 
Ages generally, t6 adopt this view ; — which in itself 
cannot be said to be anti-Christian. For, as Dr. 
Guettler '^ remarks : " The Creator loses nothing of His 
dignity and perfection, if we assume that He has given 



3. Natur forschung-imd Bibel, p. 135. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 19 

to (inorganic) matter the power to produce, under 
certain circumstances, living beings." 

Yet, careful modern scientific experiments have 
proved beyond .a doubt, that even the most minute 
organic or living beings, whether plants or animals, 
are never produced from inorganic matter, but always 
spring from some pre-existing seeds or germs of their 
own kind. The famous French scientist Pasteur has 
proved beyond any reasonable doubt : first, that the 
atmosphere is filled with minute seeds or germs of 
microscopic plants and animals ; secondly, that if the 
necessary precautions be taken, to exclude these germs 
or seeds from an apparatus, filled with matter in 
which such organisms otherwise grow, they will not 
appear ; but if the ordinary atmosphere is permitted, 
only for a moment, to come in contact with the matter 
in the apparatus, within a day or two some of the 
microscopic plants or animals will make their appear- 
ance. — Even up to 1873 the English scientist Bastian 
imagined to have proved that such microscopic organ- 
isms could be produced from inorganic matter ; — for 
some had appeared in carefully closed up matter which 
had been subjected to a heat of 212 degrees F. — But 
other English scientists, W. H. Dallinger and Dr. 
Drysdale, exposed Mr. Bastian's error by proving by 
experiments, that some microscopic organisms or seeds 
are not destroyed by a heat of even about 390 degrees.^ 

Careful experiments have convinced modern scientists, 
that, as far as observation, aided by the most perfect 



3. Dr. Fr. Lorinser : Geologie und Palacontologle, p. 301. 



80 BIOLOGY AND 

microscopes, reaches, not a solitary instance can be 
discovered, to prove that any living or organic being, 
plant or animal, can be produced from inorganic matter 
alone. 

NoAV, since all scientific results tend to prove that 
the same laws of nature have always existed — as long 
as matter has existed — it is a mere subterfuge of our in- 
fidels to say : — " Although now no such instances can be 
found, yet in remote geological ages it may have 
happened that life sprang from purely inorganic matter." 
— According to the fixed laws of nature, what is impos- 
sible to-day, must have been impossible always since 
nature, as it is, exists. 

The infidel scientist HaeckeP imagined to have, 
found in the so-called Bathybius, a jelly-like substance, 
discovered by Huxley, " the missing link " between 
inorganic matter and living organisms. But some 
suspect that this Bathybius, which was said to have 
been found at the bottom of the ocean, was nothing but 
jelly-like gypsum, and no living being at all. Asa 
Gray, the eminent American naturalist, observes : * 
" This living matter — of which Bathybius, if there he a 
Bathybius, or if it be anything more than protoplasm 
of sponges, is one example — is said to have nothing 
more than molecular structure. It would be safer to 
say that the microscope has as yet revealed no organic 
structure." 

No doubt, there are most simple jelly-like living 

beings, called moners or amoeba, living in water, of 

5. Natuerliche Schoepfungs Geschichte, 4 edit., p. 165. 
4. Natural Science and Religion, New York, 1880, p. 15. 



CHRISTIAi^ DOCTRINES COMPARED, 81 

which Prof. Winchell ^ says : " There is no stomach, 
no liver, no heart, no breathing organ, no head, no feet 
— in short, this animal is destitute of organs, excej^t as 
it employs the whole body for every purpose. When- 
ever it seizes its food, it extemporizes an arm for the 
work. Whenever it eats, it must extemporize a stomach. 
It seizes, it eats, it digests, it breathes with the whole 
body." More simple living beings cannot be imagined. 
Yet to come to the main point at issue : Are these 
microscopic, jelly-like living beings produced from 
inorganic matter ? — IN'o, there is no proof for such an 
assumption, and HaeckeP himself teaches that they are 
propagated or multiplied by self-division (Selbstthei- 
lung); as, for instance, some worms may be divided, 
and each part will continue to live by itself. 

Thus we see that, according to the present known 
facts and laws of nature, even the most imperfect living 
beings are produced only from organic beings of their 
kind, and not from any inorganic matter alone. Since, 
then, as all observation teaches, the laws of nature have 
never changed, we may safely conclude that this was 
always the case ; however infidel scientists, who, like 
Haeckel,^ would like to explain nature without admitting 
a Creator, may struggle against this inevitable conclu- 
sion. 

Thus we see that the inspired writer Moses is in 
perfect harmony with Modern Science in teaching 
that organic and living beings did not spring from 
inorganic matter alone, but appeared cU the loord of God. 

6. Sketches of Creation, pp. 70, 71. 

7. NatuerlicheSchoepfung-sgreschichte, Bei-lin, 1873, p. 167. 

8. L. c, pp. 803, 303. 



82 BIOLOGY AND 

Mr. Haeckel ^ has yet a straw to cling to in his strug- 
gle against a Creative Power, interfering with the origin 
of organic and living beings. — He admits that there 
exists no instance to show that any organic or living 
being has ever been produced from inorganic matter 
alone ; yet he hopes that in some distant futicre Chem- 
istry . will succeed in producing some. He claims 
that Modern Chemistry has succeeded in producing 
'• organic " products, as alcohol, formic acid ( Ameisenr 
sseure), etc. Therefore he expects, that sooner or later 
also other " organic " bodies will be produced artificially ; 
whereby, of course, " the deep chasm between organic 
and inorganic bodies " would be bridged over. 

To this the great chemist Justus von Liebig ^^ replies : 
" Never will Chemistry be able to produce an eye, a hair, 
or a leaf." ^^ " What those charlatans (Dilletanten) call 
organic products (organische Verbindungen) are no such 
at all, but chemical ones. But never will Chemistry 
succeed in producing a cell, a muscle-fibre, a nerve, or, 
with one word, any part of a truly organic organ- 
ism, endowed with vital properties. * * * Inorganic 
forces will always create only something inorganic." ^^ 
The authority of such a profound chemist, as Justus von 
Liebig, outweighs by far the unfounded assumptions of 
prejudiced charlatans, of whom the great chemist 
remarks : " The same charlatans in natural science, 
who know not what a fever or an inflamation is, or how 



9. L. c, pp. 203, 204. 

10. Chemische Briefe, Leipzig- und Heidelberg-, 1865, p. 14. 

11. L. c, pp. 205-6. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPARED. 83 

the blood is produced, or to what purpose the bile is, 
* * * want to make the credulous public believe that 
they can explain the origin of thoughts, the nature and 
the essence of the human spirit." ^^ 

2. MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MATTER AND LIFE. 

The relations existing between matter and life being 
one of the principal battle-grounds between modern 
materialism and Christian philosophy, let us examine 
this subject more fully. 

In the preceding article we have seen that, as exact 
and reliable experiments prove, not even the lowest, or 
most imperfect, organic or living beings can be produced 
by or from inorganic matter alone. " This great 
principle," as Francis Emily White, M. D., remarks,i 
^' was, indeed, recognized by Harvey, and first expressed 
in his famous aphorism, ' Omne vivum ex ovo ' — (every 
living being comes from an egg, or germ)." — And of this 
" ovum " we may say with Ralph Waldo Emerson : ^ 
"All we know of the egg, from each successive 
discovery, is, another vesicle ; and if, after five hundred 
years you get a better observer or a better glass, he 
finds, within the last observed, another." 

Although, then, organic and living beings cannot be 
produced by lifeless, inorganic matter, — yet there exist 
certain relations between matter and life. 

Let us see what Modern Science says on this subject. 

12. L. c, p. 207. 

1. The Populai' Science Monthly, March, 1884. 

2. The Conduct of Life, Boston, 1884, p. 19. 



84 BIOLOGY AND 

Mr. Huxley, in his famous lecture " On the Physical 
Basis of Life," remarks : " There is some one kind of 
matter which is common to all living beings. * * * 

Beast and fowl, reptile and fish, mollusk, woi-m, and 
polype, are all composed of structural units of the same 
character, namely, masses of protoplasm with a nucleus. 

* * * AYhat has been said of the animal world is no 
less true of plants. * * * All the forms of proto- 
plasm which have yet been examined contain the four 
elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, in 
very complex union." Asa Gray ^ endorses this doctrine, 
and adds : " The statement that ' protoplasm is the 
physical basis of life ' must be accepted as true. As 
Professor Allman puts it, ' wherever there is life, from 
its lowest to its highest manifestations, there is proto- 
plasm ; wherever there is protoplasm, there too is life, 
or has been." How do living organisms, as far as 
scientific observations can learn, develop from proto- 
plasm ? — This question is answered by Professor Asa 
Gray, * as follows : " Each ordinary plant or animal, 
begins as one cell, which is then the simple individual. 
This in growth divides itself into two, these two into 
four, these into sixteen, and so on, building up the 
structure. * * * Higher in the scale structures are 
built up, what were individuals, become parts or organs. 

* * * ; then the life of the cells is their own no less, 
but their individuality blends in the common life of the 
aggregate. By increasing complexity of organization, 



3. Natural Science and Eeljgion, pp. 12-13. 

4. Natural Science and Religion, pp. 30-34. 



chiiistia:n^ doctrines compared. 85 

with increasing subordination of parts and specialization 
of office, the highest plants and animals are composed." 
But does this cell theory explain the mystery of life?- 
Professor Gray answers : " It is an illusion to fancy 
that the mystery of life is less in an amoeba or a blood- 
corpuscle than in a man." 

On these points, then, modern scientists agree : that 
protoplasm is the physical basis of the life of all 
organic beings, and that all organic structures are made 
up of cells. 

Another kind of facts which prove the intimate con- 
nection between matter and life in all organic beings, is 
the so-called correlation between vital and physical or 
chemical forces. 

Professor Barker of Yale College remarks : ^ " The 
important fact must be fully recognized that in living 
beings we have to do with no ncAV elementary forms of 
matter. Precisely the same atoms which build up the 
inorganic fabric, compose the organic." 

Observation will easily convince any one that the 
material elements drawn by the plant from the soil and 
the atmosphere, are the food by which the animal and 
human body, the bones, muscles, nerves, etc., are built 
up. Prof. Barker continues : " The heat produced in 
the body is precisely such as would be set free by the 
combustion of this food outside of it. * * * No 
doubt can be entertained, that the actual energy of the 
muscle is simply the converted potential energy of the 
carbon of the food." 



5. The Correlation of Vital and Physical Forces. 



86 BIOLOGY AND 

Also the nerves and brain, the instruments of the 
human soul, are composed of matter, and are subject to 
physical and chemical influences. A diseased state of 
the brain-matter may disturb even the noblest faculty of 
man — his intelligence. 

Thus we see that matter — j^rotoplasm — is not only the 
physical basis of organic life, but also that physical or 
chemical forces are intimately connected with vital 
l^henomena of even the highest kind ; so that the 
Editor of "The Popular Science Monthly "<* feels 
justified in remarking : " In dealing with abnormal 
mental manifestations, as in the numerous forms of 
insanity and the various grades of feeble-mindedness, 
or with the psychological effects of stimulants and 
narcotics, or with the development and decline of the 
mental j^owers, or with the effects of mental overwork 
and exhaustion, it is now admitted to be indispensable 
to start from the nervous system, and to regard mental 
manifestations as conditioned by its ]3roperties and 
laws." , 

From all this we see how matter and physical or 
chemical forces are most intimately connected with the 
noblest j)henomena of life. — Prof. Joseph Le Conte, of 
the University of California, observed in a lecture : ' 
** Vital force ; whence is it derived ? What is its relation 
to the other forces of nature ? The answer of Modern 
Science to these questions is : It is derived from the 
lower forces of nature, * * * it is correlated with 
chemical and physical forces. * * * There are four 

7. Popular Science Monthly, December, 1873, p. 156-170. 
6. November, 1873, p. 110. 



CHKISTIA:tf DOCTKIXES COMrAEED. 87 

planes of material existence (the animal, vegetable, and 
mineral kingdoms, and tlie elements), which may be 
represented as raised one above another. * * * 
IS^ow it is a remarkable fact that there is a special force, 
whose function it is to raise matter from each plane to 
the plane above. * * * Plants cannot feed upon 
elements, but only on chemical compounds : animals 
cannot feed on minerals, but only on vegetables. 
* * * Now, there are also four planes of force 
similarly related to each other, viz., physical force, 
chemical force, vitality and will (sensation ? ). The 
-change from one grade to another, as from physical to 
chemical, or from chemical to vital, is not, as far as we 
-can see, by sliding scale, but suddenly. The groups of 
l^henomena which we call physical, chemical, vital, 
animal, rational, and moral, do not merge into each 
other by insensible gradations." 

Thus we see the intimate connection between matter 
and life, and between physical, or chemical, and vital 
forces. — But has Modern Science with all its ingenious 
and exact observations of material phenomena discov- 
ered the inmost nature of life, of sensation, of intelli- 
gence, of will ? 

We see the leaves, twigs, branches, and the stem of a 
great tree, — but its roots are hidden to our eyes, — so we 
also behold the manifold phenomena of life, — but their 
main-spring, their cause, is, as we shall see in the next 
article, still as mysterious to us, as it was in the days of 
Aristotle and Confucius ; although some " advanced 
thinkers " talk as if they had fathomed all the mysteries 
of the universe. 



88 BIOLOGY AND 

3. MYSTERIES OF NATURE. 

What is matter ? What is force ? What is vitality ? 
What is sensation ? What is intelligence ? What is 
will? 

These are questions to which all modern scientists, in 
spite of all scientific progress, must answer : — Igno- 
ramus^ — We know not, and shall, as mortals, never 
know ; for neither the microscope, nor the telescope, 
nor the spectrum-analysis, nor any imaginable in- 
strument is likely to ever throw any light upon these 
mysteries of nature. Let us see what reflecting 
scientists say of these questions : 

What is matter? Henry Hobart Bates, M. A., 
answers : ^ " The nature of matter is still almost as 
unknown to us in its essence as it was to the ancients^ 
since in its minute structures it lies far below the range 
of senses, or of instrumental appliances, and therefore 
beyond that direct experimental field so necessary in 
furnishing primary conceptions to the mind. * * * 
The great trouble about matter is to find out how much 
of it and what in it is material. Strange to say, there 
is nothing on which philosophers are less agreed." 

The same is true of the nature of force, which, stilL 
more than matter, eludes instrumental appliances. 
Emil Du Bois-Reymond, in his famous address on " The 
Limits of our Knowledge of Nature," delivered at the 
forty-fifth Congress of German Naturalists and Phy- 
sicians at Leipzig, August 14, 1872, remarked: "In 
our endeavor to analyse the physical world, we start out 



1. The Popular Science Monthly, April, 1883, pp. 788-9. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 89 

from the divisibility of matter, the parts being to our 
eyes something simpler and more primitive than the 
whole. When in thought we carry on this division of 
matter ad infinitum * * * ^e meet with no obstacle 
in the process. But we make no advance whatever 
toward an understanding of things, since we, in fact, 
carry over into the region of the minute and the invis- 
ible the concepts we obtained . in the region of the 
gross and the visible. * * ^i^ The ancient Ionian 
physical philosophers were no more helpless than we in 
the presence of this difficulty. The natural sciences, 
with all the progress they have made, have availed 
naught against it, nor will their future progress be of 
any greater effect. * * * Yoy two thousand years, 
despite all the advances made by natural science, 
mankind has made no substantial progress toward the 
understanding of matter and force, any more than 
toward the understanding of mental activity from its 
material conditions. And so will it ever be. * * * 
With regard to the enigma of the physical world the 
investigator of Nature has long been want to utter his 

* Ignoramus ' (we know not) with manly resignation. 

* * * As regards the enigma what matter and force 
are, and how they are to be conceived, he must resign 
himself once for all to the far more difficult confession 
— ' Ignorabimus ' — (We shall never know)." 

Still more mysterious and incomprehensible, than 
matter and physical force, seem to be — vitality, sensa- 
tion, intelligence, and will. 

Speaking of life, the same scientist remarks in the ad- 
dress mentioned before : "There comes in, at some point 



90 BIOLOGY AND 

in the development of life ujDon the Earth, which we 
cannot ascertain — something new and extraordinary ; 
something incomprehensible, again, as was the case with 
the essence of matter and force * * * This other in- 
comprehensible is consciousness * * * j ^gg the term 
•* consciousness " designedly, the question here being 
only as to the fact of an intellectual phenomenon, of 
any kind whatsoever, even of the lowest grade * * * 
Just as the most powerful and best developed muscular 
performance of man or animal is in fact no more obscure 
than the simple contraction of a single muscle — as the 
single secretory cell involves the whole system of secre- 
tion — so the most exalted mental activity is no more (?) 
incompresensible in its material conditions, than is the 
first grade of consciousness, i. e. sensation. With the 
first awakening of pleasure or pain, experienced on 
Earth by some creature of the simplest structure, ap- 
peared that impassible gulf, and then the world became 
doubly incomprehensible ***>!= The highest grade of 
knowledge (of the brain) we can ever expect to have — 
discloses to us nothing but matter in motion. But we 
cannot, by means of any imaginable movement of ma- 
terial particles, bridge over the chasm between the con- 
scious and unconscious * * * What conceivable con- 
nection subsists between definite movements of definite 
atoms in my brain, on the one hand, and on the other 
hand such (for me) primordial, indefinable, undeniable 
facts as these : I feel pain or pleasure ; I experience a 
sweet taste, or smell a rose, or hear an organ, or see 
something red — and the immediately consequent cer- 
tainty. ' Therefore I exist ?' It is absolutely and forever 



CHRISTIAN D0CTKIXE3 COMPAEED. 91 

inconceivable that a number of atoms of carbon, hydro- 
gen, nitrogen, oxigen, etc., should not be indifferent as 
to their own position and motion, past, present or future. 
It is utterly inconceiyeable how consciousness should 
result from their joint action. If their respective posi- 
tions and their motion were not indifferent to them, 
they would have to be regarded as each possessed of a 
consciousness of its own, and as so many monads. But 
this would not explain consciousness in general, nor 
would it in the least assist us in understanding the uni- 
tary consciousness of the individual." 

These words of the famous infidel scientist Du Bois- 
Reymond show that Modern Science neither can now, 
nor has it any prospect of ever being able to explain 
what that mysterious principle is which causes conscious- 
ness, or sensation, even in a worm or a microscopic 
animalcule. Much less can Modern Science explain what 
human intelligence, or reason, is. The great German 
chemist L. Justus von Liebig speaks with just indigna- 
tion of those would-be scientific charlatans who are ig- 
norant of what a fever or an inflamation is, and yet im- 
pudent enough to endeavor to make the credulous public 
believe that they are able to explain — "the origin of 
thoughts, and the nature and essence of the human 
spirit." ~ 

Indeed, Modern Science is not able to explain the 
nature of even the lowest form of life — vegetation. 
Modern Science by means of the most perfect microscopes 
has discovered, as was mentioned before, that all plants 

2. Chemisehe Briefe. 23. Brief. 



92 BIOLOGY AND 

are made up by great numbers of so-called cells. Prof. 
Ferdinand Colin of Breslau remarks in an article on "The 
Cell-State :" ^ "We owe it to the microscope that, where 
the naked eye perceives only uniform masses (in plant - 
life), we can now distinguish a wonderful diversity of 
beautiful tissues ; and that where a rigid stillness seems 
to prevail, a fullness of life-processes quite incompre- 
hensible to us is concealed. The microscope shows us 
in the plant, which was able to give the naked eye 
only obscure signs of its inner life, a highly organized 
state-life of restless development and renewal.'* 
Having compared the plant to an organized state in 
which all citizens — the plant-cells — harmoniously work 
together for the common welfare, Prof. Cohn continues : 
" We have represented the citizen of this state, the 
plant-cell, as an exceedingly simply formed being : it 
consists of a round body of soft, slimy substance, like 
a sack, the interior of which is filled with a watery 
juice. The soft substance * * * is called proto- 
plasm ; it is the most important matter in all nature, for 
it alone is the bearer of life. * * * A continuous 
formation and transformation, origin and decay, a 
constant change of matter, is going on in every cell ; 
reception and assimilation of food, inspiration and 
expiration ; certain atoms which have become of no use 
for purposes of life are cast aside, others are taken up 
from without in their places. * * * Evidently not 
solid substances are appropriated, for we know that the 
cell is encased in a perfectly closed envelope ; but 

3. The Popular Science Monthly, December, 1883, p. 174-188. 



CHKISTIAX DOCTRINES COiMPAEED. 93 

liquid and gaseous foods can be easily absorbed. 
Although the most perfect microscopes have never made 
any holes visible in the cell-envelope, there is not the 
slightest doubt that this envelope is porous, like a 
fungus, but that its pores are infinitely finer." 

Xow, that is about all the explanation Modern 
Science can — and probably ever can — give on plant-life ; 
the most perfect microscope can reveal no more. — Eveiy 
plant, then, consists of cells, of which every one is 
living, and all work harmoniously together for the 
welfare of the whole plant, to produce roots, stem, 
leaves, blossoms, and fruit. But what is that mysterious 
principle which causes each plant cell to live and work, 
— and which compells all plant-cells to work harmon- 
iously together according to a certain plan? No modern 
scientist can tell, and probably no one will ever be able 
to tell ; for that myterious principle eludes the most 
perfect microscope and the most subtle chemical 
analysis. 

Before the mystery of life, Modern Science stands as 
ignorant as the Greek philosophers centuries before 
Christ. Eveiy reflecting scientist will agree with Mr. 
Burmeister when he says : " What the principle of life 
(Lebenskraft, vitality) is, we know as little, as what 
force itself is ; and we must therefore remain satisfied 
with the meagre explanation that it is the cause 
of the all phenomena of matter."* That's just what 
we would like to know, what exactly that cause is. But 
as reflecting scientists admit — science cannot, and prob- 
ably never can, tell. 

4. Das Exacte Wissen der Xaturforsclier, von D. von Schuetz, p, 7 



94 BIOLOGY AND 

Thus we see that Modern Science, in spite of its mar- 
vellous progress in many directions, is still surrounded 
by impenetrable mysteries, which are indeed the very 
sources of all the phenomena of the visible world. — 
What is matter ? What force ? What life ? What sen- 
sation ? What intelligence ? What will ? — The answer 
of Modern Science to these questions is contained in the 
words of Du Bois-Reymond : "Ignoramus — Ignorabi- 
mus ;" we know not — and in this life never shall know ; 
— and yet all phenomena of the visible world have theu* 
source in matter, life, sensation, etc. — 

We may compare the whole visible universe to a gi- 
gantic tree. We see its leaves, branches, and stem ; — 
but the roots — from which these spring, — are hidden 
from our eyes. — We may compare this visible universe 
to a mighty stream flowing in quiet majesty through the 
plains of time and space. We see the numberless wave- 
lets on its surface, as they glide by, but we see neither 
the bottom of the stream, nor the source from which it 
springs. 

Natural sciences which are based on experiments and 
observation alone, can never explain to us the mysteries 
of matter, force, life, or intelligence. Indeed, no branch 
of human sciences can lift perfectly the veil that con- 
ceals those mysteries from our view. 

Yet, there is a science which penetrates a little further 
into these mysteries than the strictly so-called natural 
or experimental sciences. The science to which I allude, 
is Christian Philosoj^hy — which is built up on the two 
solid foundations of Human Reason and Divine Revela- 
tion. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 95 

Let US see what Christian Philosophy teaches on the 
mysteries of the visible universe. 

4. CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY ON MATTER AND LIFE. 

As we have seen in the preceding article, deeply hid- 
den mysteries underlie the whole visible creation ; — 
mysteries, the solution of which Modern Science is giv- 
ing up in despair. No man ever has known fully, and no 
mortal ever will know, what the intrinsic natures of 
matter, force, vitality, sensation, intelligence, or will,, 
are. — Let us therefore, without uselessly troubling our- 
selves about the unknowable, be content with what we 
can know on the subject. 

Christian Philosophy has penetrated as far, as man 
will ever be able to do, into those mysterious recesses of 
nature, — into which neither the telescope, nor the mi- 
croscope, nor the spectrum-analysis can penetrate. — Here 
is a realm of hidden truths that can not be touched 
with the hand, or seen with the eye, but must be 
reached by reason — or the intellect, which does not stop 
at the visible phenomena, but penetrates beyond them, 
by reading the nature of the causes in their eifects^ 
Therefore this faculty, with which man alone in the vis- 
ible creation has been endowed by the Creator, has 
been called "intellect", — from "intus", or "inter" and 
"legere" — to read within, or between ; — because by 
means of this faculty man can, to some extent, read what 
is concealed behind, or within, or between visible phe- 
nomena. 

Now let us see what Christian Philosophy teaches on. 
the subjects of matter and life. 



96 BIOLOGY AND 

St. Augustine ^ remarks : "Two things Thou, O God, 
hast created : the one quite near to Thee (the angels) ; 
the other quite near to nothing (matter). The one has 
nothing above itself, but Thee ; the other has nothing 
below itself, but the nothing." St. Bonaventure ex- 
presses the same thought with these words - "It was be- 
coming that God created not only a substance far distant 
from Himself, namely the corporeal nature, but also a 
substance near to Himself ; and this is the intellectual 
substance (the angels)." — In man, the moral center of 
creation, we find both natures, or substances, perfectly 
united — matter or body — and spirit. — Divine Revela- 
tion teaches that higher in the scale of creation than 
man, are numberless angels of different degrees of per- 
fection, whom man resembles as to his spiritual, intelli- 
gent soul ; — and below man, in the scale of creation, we 
find numberless gradations of beings, — which have more 
or less similarity with man. On one point all corporeal 
beings, from a particle of dust to the most perfect ani- 
mal, have a similarity to man : in all we find two distinct 
yet intimately united principles of their being — a ma- 
terial and an immaterial one. The former is called by 
Christian Philosophy "materia", or matter, — the latter, 
"forma," or the formative principle. The Jesuit Father 
M. Liberatore ^ says on the essential composition of 
bodies : "The reality * * * from which extension re 
suits, is best called materia (matter); the extensionless 
force is best called forma." 



1. Confessionis, XII, 7. 

2. Brevilognium II, 6. 

3. Institutiones Pliilosophicae, Romae, 1861, p. 460. 



CHEISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 97 

ISTow, these two principles we find in every body : in 
a particle of dust as well as in minerals, plants, animals, 
and man ; — a material, passive, principle from which 
arises the extension of the bodies, and an non-material, 
active principle which gives bodies their peculiar nature, 
or mode of existence and operation. 

In visible nature, we find these two principles united 
everywhere ; yet the more perfect in the scale of crea- 
tion beings are, the more the "forma," or active principle, 
becomes superior to or independent of matter. — In 
minerals, we find the "materia" and "forma" in seemingly 
perfect interdependence. — In plants, the active principle, 
or "forma", shows itself more plainly by marshalling 
the particles of matter according to certain ideas or 
plans. — In animals, the nouymaterial, active, principle not 
only marshals the material particles within the body of 
the animal, but also moves the whole body, receives sen- 
sual impressions, and causes the most complicated reflex 
actions. In man, the active principle becomes, by 
abstraction and reflexion, perfectly conscious of its 
existence, it perceives the nature of things surrounding 
him, etc. — And in angels finally, as we know from Re- 
velation, we find the active principle, or "form," in its 
purity — without any material admixture. 

After these general remarks, let us briefly consider the 
differences between inorganic matter and j^lants, — be- 
tween plants and animals, — and between animals and 
man. — Now-a-days especially it is necessary for intelli- 
gent Christians to have a clear idea of these differences, 
because infidel materialists endeavor by all means, if 
this were possible, to explain all these differences away, 



98 BIOLOGY AND 

— and to explain the whole visible universe, man in- 
cluded, on the shallow assumption that all living beings 
are merely complicated formations gradually developed 
from inorganic, material molecules without any inter- 
vention of a wise and powerful Creator. 

Thus, for instance. Prof. John Tyndall, in his famous 
Inaugural Address before the British Association,* re- 
marked : " Trace the line of life backward, and see 
it approaching more and more to what we call the 
purely physical condition. We reach at length those 
organisms which I have compared to drops of oil sus- 
pended in a mixture of alcohol and matter. We reach 
the protogenes of Haeckel, in which we have ' a type 
distinguishable from a fragment of albumen only by its 
finely granular character.' * * * j prolong the 
vision backward across the boundary of experimental 
evidence, and discern in * * * matter * * * 
the promise and potency of every form and quality of 
life." 

Such, in substance, is the view of some infidel 
scientists who, to get rid of a Creator, let their imagin- 
ation escape with their reason "across the boundary' of 
experimental evidence." — Cool-headed scientists, on the 
contrary, as we have seen in a previous article, maintain 
that, as far as "experimental evidence" reaches, no 
organism whatever, plant or animal, however small, has 
yet been known to have originated directly from inor- 
ganic matter ; in every observed case, it was an organic 
germ, or ovum, from which the organic being sprang. 



4. The Popular Science Monthly, October, 1874, p. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 99 

Not only inorganic matter, but also organizing forces 
are necessary for tlie production of any organic being. 
The nature of organic beings does not depend so 
much on the material substrata, as on the formative 
forces operating on these. 

As we have seen before, the so-called " protoplasm," 
composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, is 
" the physical basis " of all plant and animal life, — and 
is physiologically and structurally the same in both 
plants and animals.^ Morever, each ordinary plant or 
animal begins as one cell, which multiplies, building up 
the whole plant or animal structure.^ From this we see 
that the material substratum is essentially the same in 
plants and animals. — But what causes the countless 
differences between plants and animals ? — Not the 
material substrata which are essentially the same in all, 
but the different "formal" or formative principles 
which are united with these material substrata. 

On this point Christian Philosophy and experimental 
evidence agree perfectly ; — and, indeed, Modern Science 
is on this point not a step ahead of Christian Philos- 
ophy as taught in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas. 
Let us then see what Christian Philosophy teaches 
concerning matter and life, — and how its views are 
corroborated by modern scientists and philosophers. 

Father Liberatore,^ one of the most profound modern 
philosophers, following the principles of St. Thomas, 
teaches : " In living beings there is a certain essential 

5. Natural Science and Relis"ion, by Asa Gray, p. 13. 

6. Ibid., pp. 30, 31. 

7. Institutiones Philosophicae, Rome, 1861, p. 501. 



100 BIOLOGY AND 

principle, quite distinct from physical and chemical 
forces." It is owing to this principle, that j^lants grow 
and propagate themselves ; it is owing to this principle, 
that animals have sensations, etc. ; it is owing to this 
principle, that man reasons, etc. But this principle is 
not the same in plants, in animals, and in man, as the dif- 
ferent effects i^rove. In j^lants, it causes only vegetative 
life, in animals, the vegetative and sensitive life, — in 
man, finally, besides causing the vegetative and sensitive 
life, it is also the source of reason, — that faculty which 
elevates man beyond the material world, and places him 
in the realm of the spirits. 

This is, in substance, the view of Christian Philosophy 
on matter and life. Let us see what modern scientists 
^say on this same subject. 

Dr. Julius Adolph Stoeckhardt,^ one of the most 
famous German chemists, observes : " As long as a 
plant or an animal lives, the chemical processes stand 
under the guardianship of a superior, mysterious power, 
which is called vitality (Lebenskraft), and are forced 
by it to gather the materials for the structure of the 
plant' or animal body. Vitality is, as it were, the archi- 
tect that makes the plan of the building, and sees to it 
that the necessary materials are procured by chemical 
processes, and disposed according to its will. * * * 
When life ceases in a plant or an animal, the chemical 
processes gain the upper hand, and they alone, as 
scavengers (Todtengraeber) of nature, fulfill the old 
saying : * What is of earth, shall again return to earth.' " 

8. Die Schule der Chemie, No. 3. 

9. Ibid., No. 546. 



CHRISTIAIS^ DOCTRINES COMPARED. 101 

Again ® Dr. Stoeckhardt remarks on the life of plants : 
" An Incomprehensible Wisdom has endowed the seed 
with a force which causes the seed, placed in moist soil, 
to germinate, to grow up as a plant, to bring forth leaves, 
blossoms, and seeds (or fruit). * * * If they (the 
plants) have produced seeds, that is, new bodies 
endowed with vitality, they have fulfilled their object, 
and their course goes downward towards decomposition. 
Whether they come to this end after a short summer, 
or after hundreds of years, makes no material differ- 
ence. The breath of God, which calls forth these 
changes, the phenomena of life, in the world of plants, 
is perfectly unknown to us as to its nature (or essence). 
It has indeed been called vitality (Lebenskraft) ; yet 
thereby we have not come to a clearer understanding 
of its being. Its operations are conducted in such a 
mysterious manner, that it seems as if the yearning 
(Ahnen) of the investigating mind of man shall, in 
this respect, here below, never be changed into clear 
vision." 

Another famous German chemist, Justus von Liebig,^* 
also insists on the necessity of distinguishing chemical 
processes from the effects of the vital principle (Lebens- 
kraft), in plants and animals. He declares that in 
organic, living beings a formative (formbildendes) 
principle, a ruling idea, works in and with the chemical 
forces. 

These two great chemists but assert what unprejudiced 
scientists generally admit — and what Christian Philos- 



10. Chemisehe Bi-iefe. 



102 BIOLOGY AND 

ophy has taught for centuries : that in living organisms 
a life-giving principle — superior to the known chemical 
and physical forces — must be admitted. 

Some infidel scientists who would fain explain all 
phenomena according to their preconceived theory of 
atomic materialism, are inclined to deny this assumption. 
Prof. John Tyndall even imagines to have found the 
connecting link between mere inorganic matter and 
living plants — in crystals. — In an article on " Crystalline 
and Molecular Forces," " he says : " How have these 
crystals been built up ? * * * Without crossing 
the boundary of experience, we can make no attempt to 
answer this question. * * * From the processes of 
crystallization * * * you pass by almost imper- 
ceptible gradations to the lowest vegetable organisms, 
and from these through higher ones up to the highest." 

Mr. Tyndall admits that he cannot explain the forma- 
tion of crystals " without crossing the boundary of 
experience ; " he imagines, nevertheless, that one may 
pass from the process of crystalization gradually to 
vegetable organisms. In imagination only, — Mr. Tyn- 
dall should have added. 

No doubt, the processes of crystallization prove that 
the Creator has endowed certain matters, as sugar, salt, 
sulphur, lead, etc., with a mysterious force which 
compels, under certain circumstances, their molecules to 
form, with mathematical precision, certain configura- 
tions. Yet, the most perfect crystal is as much different 
from even the lowest vegetable form, as a sculptured 
horse from a living one. 

11. The Popular Science Monthly, January, 1875, pp. 257-66. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 103 

Every crystal is formed under certain circumstances, 
— and then, if not disturbed by outside influences, 
remains unchangeable for any length of time. The 
stamp of stability — of death, is imprinted on it. On 
the other hand, we find motion from within — life 
— in the very lowest of vegetable forms ; they all 
germinate, grow, and reproduce their species ad indefin- 
itum. That's more than any crystal can do. 

Having considered the boundary line betweeen life- 
less matter and plants, let us next see what separates 
the vegetable from the animal kingdom. 

Many modern scientists look more to the material 
elements found in plants and animals than to the 
so-called " forma," or active principle, which causes the 
differences between vegetable and animal organisms. 
Prof. Asa Gray, for instance, remarks : ^^ " We cannot 
conceive anything more characteristic of a vegetable 
than chlorophyll, the green of herbage. * * * Now 
not only does chlorophyll abound in many ambiguous 
microscopical organisms of fresh and salt water, which 
except for this would be taken for animals, but it has 
recently been detected in hydras and sea-anemones and 
planarias, which are as certainly animals as are oysters 
and clams." 

Again Prof. Asa Gray remarks : " The characteristic 
features of an animal were mouth and stomach. * * * 
But nature, with all her fondness for patterns, will not 
be arbitrarily held to them. Entozoa feed — like rhizo- 
phytes ; and turbellarias and their relatives have no 



12. Natural Science and Religion, pp. 10-19. 



104 BIOLOGY AND 

alimentary canal, — the food taken by wliat answers to 
mouth passing as directly into the general tissue as does 
the material which a parasite root imbibes from it s host 
or an ordinary root from its soil." Moreover, Prof. 
Gray remarks : " The rule is that vegetables create 
organic matter, and animals consume it, producing 
none. But, while some animals produce some organic 
matter, some plants * * * feed wholly upon other 
plants, or even upon animals or their products." * * * 
" Again Prof. Gray remarks : " Not many years ago it 
was taught that plants and animals were composed of 
different materials : plants, of a chemical substance of 
three elements, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen ; animals 
of one of four elements, nitrogen, being added to the 
other three. * * * But it was soon ascertained that 
this quarternary matter of the animal body was chem- 
ically the same in the plant, was elaborated there, and 
only appropriated by the animal. Next it was found 
that It was physiologically and substantially the same 
in the plant, that it was the living part of the plant, 
that which' manifested the life and did the work in 
vegetable as well as in animal organism: This sub- 
stance * * * has, in its state of living matter, 
one physiological name which has become familiar, that 
of protoplasm. 

In view of these facts, Prof. Gray concludes : "The 
best, I am disposed to say the settled, opinion now is, 
that there are multitudinous forms which are not " suffi- 
ciently diiferentiated to be distinctly either plant or 
animal, while, as respects ordinary plants and animals, 
the difficulty of laying down a definition has become far 



CHRISTIAX DOCTRIXES COMrAEED. 105 

greater than ever before. In short, the animal and 
vegetable lines, diverging widely above, join below in a 
loop * * * The fact is, that a new article has recently 
been added to the scientific creed, the essential oneness 
of the two kingdoms of organic nature." 

Here Prof. Gray expresses the opinion of many modern 
naturalists who try to explain all mysteries of the or- 
ganic nature with the help of the microscope, or chemical 
analysis. 

Yet, these gentlemen forget that the mysterious cau- 
ses of natural phenomena, which we call forces^ cannot 
be reached with the hand, the eye, — or any, no matter 
how ingeniously constructed, instruments. Moreover, 
they forget that it is not the material composition of 
the organisms, but just those mysteriously hidden ^/brc65, 
that cause all the differences of vital j^^i^^i^omena in 
the organic world. These naturalists are consequently 
on the wrong track, — and their instruments and obser- 
vations will only help to make confusion worse — if they 
want to find, in the material comjjositions, the essential 
differences between plants and animals. 

Many centuries ago, Aristotle and the Christian philo- 
sophers, as St. Thomas and his followers, have seen 
more clearly into this subject. Their doctrine on this 
point is briefly thus explained by the Jesuit Father 
Liberatore : ^^ " The essential difference by which the 
animal kingdom is distinguished from the vegetable, is 
sensation (sensibilitas)." Xow here our naturalists have 
a sure criterion : every organic being which is endowed 



13. Institutiones Philosophicae, Kome, 1861, pp. 521-537. 



106 BIOLOGY AND 

with the faculty of sensation, — but not with the power 
only of making, under certain conditions, some move- 
ments, without perception of any kind, as for instance, 
the Mimosa Pudica (Sensitive Plant) and other plants, 
— is an animal. Every organic being which only grows 
and propagates its kind is only a plant. 

In order to find out whether any organic being is a 
plant or an animal, our natualists need not trouble them- 
selves about its material composition, but about the fact 
whether it has any real sensation, or feeling, or not. 

Emil Du Bois-Reymond remarks in the famous 
address referred to before : " With first feeling of 
pleasure or pain, which, at the beginning of animal 
life on Earth, a most simple organized being felt, 
an insurmountable chasm has been made." Sensa- 
tion, then, is the chasm that separates plants from 
animals. — There may be organic beings concern- 
ing which reasonable doubts may exist, whether they 
are animals or plants ; — but only so long as there 
is any doubt whether they have real sensation, or not. 
Moreover, there may be animals that look a good deal 
like plants ; — but let it be born in mind that even the 
most perfect animals are also plants, — that is, they have 
also a vegetative life ; like plants, they grow from a 
seed, develope themselves, and by seeds, propagate their 
kind. 

Having considered wherein the difference between 
plants and animals consists, let us next see wherein man 
differs from the animals. As the animals possess 
all the essential vital properties of plants, so again man 
possesses all the perfections of the most perfect animals. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 107 

But man possesses also a faculty not found in ani- 
mals — reason. Philosophers have therefore defined 
man to be an "animal rationale" — a rational animal. 
Since this question is now-a-days of great importance, 
it deserves especial attention. 



VI. PSYCHOLOGY. 

1. ANIMAL SEXSATIOX AXD HUMAX INTELLIGENCE. 

Q CIENTISTS inclined to materialism endeavor, if that 
were possible, to explain away, not only the barrier that 
separates the vegetable from the animal kingdom, but 
also the chasm that exists between Animal Sensation 
and Human Intelligence. 

If, as Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Haeckel, and numer- 
ous others, assume, man were but a highly developed 
animal, then there would, of course, be no essential, but 
only a gradual, difference between the sensations of a 
dog or a monkey, for instance, — and the intellectual 
perceptions of man. — This false view is held by many 
modern scientists, and, more or less openly, published 
in countless works, pamphlets, and periodical publica- 
tions. 

To get at the exact truth on this point, it is necessaiy 
to distinguish carefully between what man has in com- 
mon with the, especially more perfect, animals, and 
the faculty with which he alone is endowed. Then 
it will be seen that man is as distinct from a mere 
animal, as an animal is distinct from a mere plant. 



108 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

What, then, has man in common with the more perfect 
animals ? — The faculty of sensation with its various 
ramifications. This faculty is based, as St. Thomas ob- 
serves, on the sense of touch or feeling, " Sensus tactus 
* * * quasi f undamentum aliorum sensuum." ^ Even the 
lowest animals, that have no eyes, ears, etc., are endowed 
with this faculty, which is admirably perfected in the 
higher animals, that have eyes, ears, etc., through which 
they receive distinct impressions from material objects. 
Moreover, the organisation of every animal is so con- 
structed by the Creator, that to every such impression 
of which animals become aware, a certain re-action in 
the animal system corresponds. This re-action im- 
plies what Christian philosophers call " appetitus sensi- 
tivus," — the sensitive appetite or inclination. This may 
be either positive, as, for instance, when a thirsty animal 
sees water for drinking, — or negative, as, for instance, 
when a hen sees a hawk, and endeavors to escape 
the danger. — Something to some extent similar 
we may observe with a magnetic needle, the 
poles of which are either attracted by some objects, or 
repelled from them. Something similar may be seen 
with plants, which try to grow towards light, and to get 
out of darkness. — But neither the magnetic needle nor 
the plants /ee^, as the animal does, this positive or nega- 
tive inclination. 

The more perfect animals, as dogs, elephants, etc., 
have not only the exterior seiises of sight, hearing, 
taste, smell, and touch, but they are also endowed with 



1. Liberatore, Institutiones Philosophicae, p, 569. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 109 

the power of perceiving, not only certain qualities of 
exterior objects, but also the dispositions and immuta- 
tions of their own bodies. 

This interior sensation has been called by St. Thomas 
Aquinas ^^sensus communis,^'' — and is considered to be 
the centre in which all exterior sensations meet. ^ This 
so-called "sensus communis" in animals seems to cor- 
respondent somewhat with what in rational and reflect- 
ing man is called consciousness. Xow, this "sensus 
communis" not only receives the exterior sensations, 
but also retains them, at least for some time ; — and 
here we have what we call the sensitive mefmory of ani- 
mals. Moreover, since animals thus retain the impres- 
sions caused by exterior sensations, called phantasmata 
by Christian philosophers, and since certain sensa- 
tions recall in the memory corresponding former ones, 
— animals have also what we call imagination, or, as 
Christian philosophers often call it, phantasy. — That 
the more perfect animals are endowed with this faculty, 
no one will doubt, who ever noticed a dog dreaming, or 
saw a cat carefully watching a hole into which, as she 
scents, a rat must have crawled, although she never saw 
that rat. 

Finally animals are endowed with a sensitive faculty, 
called by the Scholastics vis aestiniativa, which enables 
them, independently of the sensation of the agreeable, 
to perceive instinctively what is convenient or 
repugnant to their peculiar nature. 



2, Libei-atore: Institutiones Philosophieae, p. 5 



110 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

These are all the essential psychological faculties with 
which the most perfect animals are endowed ; — and all 
these faculties man has in common with them. 

But besides these faculties based on sensation, man 
is endowed with another, a higher faculty, which no 
animal possesses, — namely, the intellect, or, as this fa- 
culty is also called, reason. 

This faculty has been termed very appropriately — "in- 
tellectus" — from "intus," or "inter," and "legere," — "to 
read within," — or "between." For man not only per- 
ceives sensations, as the animals do, but he has also the 
faculty of penetrating beyond these sensations, and of 
reading many things in the phenomena presented by the 
senses, which the senses cannot perceive. 

Dr. Paul Haffner^ explains the doctrine of Christian 
philosophy on this point as follows : The first and fun- 
damental activity of the intellect we call abstraction, 
and the thereby received abstract representations — 
general ideas (universalia) * * * The abstractive ac- 
tivity of the intellect developes itself in three degrees. 
We abstract from the representations of .the senses, first 
the realities peculiar to every one of the senses. Whilst 
the nerve of the eye, in consequence of the impressions 
caused by some rays of light, produces some sensations 
of sight, the intellect forms the idea of color, light, and 
figure ; whilst the nerve of hearing perceives the im- 
pressions caused by vibrations of the air, the intellect 
rises to the general idea of sound. * * * Above these 
abstractions which transform the representations of the 
various senses into general ideas, arises a second degree 

3. Grundlinien der Aufgabe der Philosophie, 1881, pp. 193-6. • 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. Ill 

of abstraction, by which material objects are compre- 
hended in such ideas as are common to all representa- 
tions of the senses. We comprehend them in mathema- 
tical ideas of size, number, motion, etc. Going another 
step higher, the human intellect forms the antological 
ideas, by which we comprehend all things in their com- 
mon essence, — and by their analogies we elevate our- 
selves to the knowledge of supersensual things and of 
God. By means of these general ideas, in which the 
essence of things is comprehended in a supersensual 
manner, the human intellect is, moreover, enabled to 
obtain the data by means of which it comprehends the 
relations of the various objects of existence." 

In this manner, then, our intellect reaches, as Libera- 
tore * observes, by its own activity, quite immaterial 
objects, as, for instance, God, the spirits, justice, 
science, and numberless other objects, quite beyond 
the province of matter. 

Of all this we find no trace in any animal. Therefore 
Christian Philosophy has always held that man alone in 
the visible nature has a faculty called the intellect, by 
which he is elevated as much above the animal, as the 
animal is above the plant. 

It may be mentioned here, that the intellect is the 
source of the following faculties or mental phenomena: 
First, reason y which, as Libertore ^ remarks, is 
no faculty different from the intellect, but the intel- 
lect itself, performing a certain function, which we call 
reasoning. Secondly, reflexion; for the intellect can 

4. Institutiones Philosophical, Roma, 1861, p. 580. 

5. L. c, p. 592. 



112 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

consider its own acts ; what senses cannot do so. The 
eye, for instance, can see, but it cannot see that it does 
see. Thirdly, the intellective memory ; for the intellect 
not only forms ideas, but also preserves them in its 
treasury. Fourthly, attention; for the intellect can 
freely turn its acts of thought to certain objects, no 
matter how distant or non-material. Fifthly, associa- 
tion of ideas ; for the intellect can not only reflect on 
certain ideas, but also, at the same time, recall other 
ideas, connected with the former, which had been stored 
in memory. — A faculty of the human mind, specifically 
distinct from the intellect, yet subordinate to it, is the 
will ; for we can not only discern what is desirable or 
not, but also freely choose between different objects. 

These are the spiritual faculties of man, which may 
be improved by using them. Liberatore says : " Ex- 
perience teaches, that by often repeating certain acts 
(of thinking, willing, etc.), we acquire a certain facility 
of acting in that direction : and this facility of acting 
we call habit." A habit, as St. Thomas^ teaches, is 
midway between mere potency and pure act. (Habitus 
quodammodo est medium inter potentiam et purum 
actum.) 

Having explained the theoretical views of Christian 
Philosophy on Animal Sensations and Human Intel- 
ligence, we will next show that these views are based on 
carefully observed facts. 



Summa Theol., I. P., Quaest. 79, Art. 7. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 113 

2. ANIMAL INSTINCT AND HUMAN REASON. 

\Ye have seen in the preceding article, that man 
possesses all the sensitive faculties with which the most 
perfect animals are endowed. On this point all agree. 
Moreover, man possesses a higher faculty which, in the 
scale of created perfection, elevates him as far above 
the most perfect animal, as this, by its faculty of sensa- 
tion, is elevated above the vegetable kingdom. — This 
faculty, with which man alone in the visible nature is 
endowed, is called intelligence, — or reason. 

As explained before, with this faculty man transcends 
the realm of sensations, perceives general truths, or ab- 
stract ideas, — and penetrates to the veiy Source of all 
truth — God, the Creator, Himself. — Nothing like this 
faculty, Christian Philosophy holds, is to be found with 
animals ; they possess no faculty beyond the sensitive 
"actus compositi," — as Scholastics call them ; — that is, 
the acts exercised by means of corporal organs. Ani- 
mals are not capable of perceiving abstract truths, or 
general principles ; hence they also do not act under the 
guidance of abstract, or general, ideas, — but their 
highest psychological operations are caused by, and con- 
fined to, concrete, or indimdual objects of reality or 
imagination, — as careful and exact observations prove. 

Since there exists a great confusion of ideas on this 
point among English and American scientists who con- 
found sensation with intelligence, and instinct with rea- 
son, — and consequently see no essential, but only a 
gradual difference between man and animals, let us ex- 
amine this subject more in detail. 



114 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

To avoid confusion, let us first consider such psycho- 
logical operations as are common to all animals of the 
same species or variety ; and oiext, such as may be ob- 
served with individual animals, in peculiar circum- 
stances. We will then see that there are no proofs to be 
found which would warrant the assumption that any 
animal has a faculty transcending the sphere of mere 
sensations, and penetrating into the realm of general 
principles, or abstract ideas. 

First, then, let us turn our attention to the so-called 

instincts which are common to all animals of the same 

species or variety. 

Dr. Ludwig Schuetz ^ mentions the folloAving facts i 
All animals of the same species or variety select the 

same Kinds of places for their abodes: the lion, the desert;, 
the chamois, the summits of mountains; some species of 
birds inhabit dense forests ; — other varieties prefer 
mountainous regions, etc. — Some species of animals, as 
the bee and the beaver, hidld their oion abodes y' and all 
individuals of the same species build exactly alike. 
Young birds of the most different kinds are annually 
hatched ; they never saw that, or how, their nests were 
built. But when spring comes again, they go to work, 
select a place, collect materials, and build a nest, in 
all respects just like the one in which they first saw day- 
light. — Every species of animal has its own peculiar 
kind oifood : swallows, insects ; squirrels, nuts ; cattle, 
grass and grain ; etc. If some animals get sick, they 
change their diet ; cats and dogs, contrary to their or- 
dinary appetite, in such cases, eat grass.— Some animals. 

7. Das Thier hat keine Vernunft. Muenster, 1871. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEINES COMPARED. 115 

have to get their peculiar food at a great distance: 
the green-peak of Xorth America, at the proper season, 
crosses the Atlantic Ocean, to get his share of the 
French cherries ; other birds cross the great Sahara, 
the Mediteranean Sea, etc., in quest of food ; and at 
the right time they return home again. — Some animals 
that live on food which cannot be found in winter, col- 
lect a sufficient supply beforehand, which they, as it would 
seem, wisely and intelligently store away for winter's 
use ; as, for instance, the squirrel, tjie hamster, the 
whistling rabbit of Siberia, etc. — Some animals develop 
a great deal of ingenuity in capturing, or otherwise pro- 
curing their food; for instance, some ants and the squirt- 
ing fish of India ; lobsters slyly watch oysters, and let 
little pebbles drop between the shells, as often as these 
are opened, until the oysters can be got at, etc. — In 
case o/* ^?a?i^er, all animals of the same species protect 
or defend themselves and their young ones in a like 
manner. Rabbits, deer, and other timid animals liee ; 
the partridge, young chickens, etc., hide in the grass, or 
cower as much as possible, so as not to be seen. — Some 
animals are provided with weapons of defense : the 
bee, with a sting ; the eagle, with a beak and claws ; 
"bulls aim there horns, and asses lift their heels," — 
as a poet remarks, etc. — Most remarkable are the in- 
stincts of the various species of animals in regard to the 
propagation of their kind. — The young of each 
species are brought forth at a time most favorable to their 
growth. Many species of animals prepare convenient 
resting places for their young : birds build various kinds 
of nests ; the rabbit collects fine moss, etc., for that 



116 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

purpose ; the turtle and crocodile lay th^ir eggs in 
warm sand near water; many insects deposit their eggs 
under leaves which protect them from birds and provide 
their young, as soon' as hatched by the warmth of 
the atmosphere, with food. — Many animals exhibit a 
marvelous sagacity in feeding their young. — Some 
species of birds are very careful not to betray their 
nests. Before flying to it, they first stop for a while at a 
good distance from it, and watch whether they are being 
observed, or not. Just as circumspect they are, when 
again leaving the nest. If there are several young ones 
to be fed, the parent-animals observe a strict order, so 
that no one is fed more than once at a time, and no one 
overlooked. — Some of the older birds, as sparrows, live 
mostly on seeds; yet as these would be too hard to digest 
for the young ones, these are fed, at first, always with 
tender insects. — Still more remarkable it is, how care- 
fully many insects that will not live any more by the 
time their young' come to life, provide for these 
beforehand, so that they will find right off the 
food they need. — When danget^ threatens their young, 
some animals show a skill in defending them, that would 
be creditable to any rational being under the same cir- 
cumstances. For instance, when cats, dogs, owls, etc., 
perceive that their young are endangered in a cer- 
tain place, they will carry them to a more secure place. 
In such a case, the young of some species get will- 
ingly on the backs of the old ones, and let themselves 
be carried away. The hen will sound an alarm, and 
the little chickens taking the hint, will hide as quickly as 
they can under the wings of the old hen, or in high 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 117 

grass, etc. — 4 male partridge, when a dog or a man 
comes near its nest, will by its cry warn the female 
and the young ; then act as if it could not fly 
away, to attract the enemy's attention, until the female 
and the young are in safety. — Not less remarkable 
are the methods by which some species of animal pro- 
tect themselves against surprise. For instance, the 
chamois, flamingoes, etc., wherever they stop, have 
regular sentinels stationed about, that, in case of dan- 
ger, give a warning signal, at which all follow the 
the leader of the flock, or act otherwise in accordance 
with their peculiar instincts. 

Numerous such illustrations could be added, which 
show beyond a shadow of doubt, that every species of 
animal, in many respects, acts according to principle s 
of prudence, — princij)les of reason. 

N'oio the question is: Does this prove that animals 
are endowed vnth intelligence^ — with reason? 

This is aftirmed by numerous modern writers, especi- 
ally such as endeavor to explain away the essential 
differences between animals and man. These writers 
conclude : — because animals act according to principles 
of reason, to attain certain desirable ends, therefore 
they must be endowed with reason. 

The fallacy of this conclusion will be easily perceived. 
Machines, too, operate according to principles of reason, 
to attain certain desirable ends ; — but who would 
therefore assert that they are endowed with reason ? — 
Moreover, in the vegetable kingdom we find everywhere 
that plants' operate according to principles of reason, 
for certain desirable ends. — Plants need food ; the roots 



118 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

of plants invariably endeavor to extend themselves in 
the direction lohere the most suitable plant-food is to 
be found. — Plants need light ; if they have not got 
their fair share of it, they do their best to get as near 
the light as possible ; as plants growing in partially 
dark cellars, under the shade of trees, etc. — Some plants 
even catch animals and use them for food. Prof. Asa 
Gray ^ relates of the plant Dionaea, that its two sides 
suddenly close like a trap, to enclose an alighted fly; 
then it pours out digestive juices, and in due time 
re-absorbs the whole. — Some plants, as grape-vines, tend 
to grow upwards, as high as possible. Their own stem 
is too weak to support them. Hence they stretch out 
miniature fingers in every direction — the tendrils, to get 
hold of something, to lift themselves up higher. As 
soon as a tendril has reached a convenient hold, it will 
commence to twist itself firmly around it. 

Now, such and numerous similar illustrations which 
could be added, show beyond doubt, that also plants, 
like animals, act according to principles of reason — to 
attain certain desirable ends. But who would therefore 
dream of ascribing reason to plants ? 

In fact, w^herever we look to in the wide universe, we 
see all beings operating according to principles of 
reason — for certain ends. The Sun, the planets, etc., 
move according to exact laws; the smallest atoms do the 
same. Every plant grows and brings forth fruit of its 
kind without fail. Every animal lives, grows, moves, 
and acts, within its sphere, with the regularity of a 
delicately constructed clockwork or machine. • 

8. Natural Science and Religion, p. 23. 



CHRISTIAjJi DOCTRINES COMPARED. 119 

This, no doubt, proves that there is a rational cause 
of these operations, — but not that either the plants or 
animals have reason. — That plants have intelligence, or 
reason, probably nobody of sane mind will assert ; that 
animals, notwithstanding their seemingly quite rational 
operations, have no intelligence, or reason, but are 
actuated by an irresistible, unconscious impulse, — called 
instinct, — will become plain to every one who reflects 
on the following facts to which Prof. Joseph Le Conte ^ 
calls attention. 

After describing some most remarkable phenomena 
of insect life, he continues : " Now, such actions per- 
formed by man would show high intelligence and much 
experience ; and yet we cannot attribute such intelli- 
gence to these insects, because their actions in other 
directions and under other and new conditions exhibit 
but a A' ery small amount of intelligence ( ? ) ; Ave are 
compelled to attribute these Avise actions to another and 
somcAA^iat different faculty, which by Avay of distinc- 
tion AA'e call instinct." " Intelligence," he adds, " AA'orks 
by experience, and is wholly dependent on individual 
experience, for the wisdom of its actions. * * * On 
the contrary, instinct is Avholly independent of individual 
experience. The young bee or mud-AA'asp, untaught, 
works at once without hesitation, with the greatest 
precision and in the Avisest manner, to accomplish the 
most marA^elous results." 

Morever, ^^Intelligence belongs to the individual, and is 
therefore variable, i. e., different in different individuals, 
and also hnprovahle in the life of the indimdual by 

9. The Popular Science Monthly, Octoter, 1ST5, p, 657. 



120 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

experience. — Instinct behngs to the sjMcies, and is there- 
fore the same in all individuals and unimprovable with 
age and experience. * * * Instinct in its sphere is 
far moi'e perfect and unerring than intelligence. — It 
makes no mistakes, because determined by structure, 
not by imperfect knowledge. — In a word, intelligent 
conduct is self-detei*mined and becomes wise by in- 
dividual experience. Instinctive conduct is predeter- 
tnined in unsdotn hy brain-structure.''^ 

This explanation, for what is true of insects in this 
regard, is true of animals generally, suffices to show 
the vast difference between Animal Instinct and Human 
Intelligence, or Reason. Human Reason is a faculty 
above the sphere of sensation ; — a faculty which looks 
down upon sensations, as the eye looks upon visible 
objects. Man is not only aware, like animals, of ex- 
ternal and internal sensations, but by his intelligence, he 
also penetrates into the nature and objects of these 
sensations ; — which no animal can do. 

Human Intelligence, or Reason, therefore, though it 
operates on facts of sensation, is not bound to 
corporeal organs, but is a free, self-determining 
faculty; whereas Animal Instinct is most intimately 
connected with the animal organism, therefore entirely 
dependent on it in its operations. Like sensation, Animal 
Instinct depends on two factors : a sensitive impression 
on the organism, — and a reaction of the latter. Human 
Intelligence, or Reason, is a free, spiritual faculty ; — 
Animal Instinct, on the other hand, a pre-determined 
merely sensitive faculty. 



CHEISTIA:S^ DOCTRINES COMPARED. 121 

St. Thomas Aqiiirras^'' remarks: "Xo operation of 
the sensitive part (faculties) can take place without the 
body (organism). In the souls of animals, no operation 
beyond those of the sensitive part are to be found ; for 
they (animals) neither understand nor reason ; which 
is evident from the fact that all animals of the same 
species operate alike ; for all swallows build their nests 
alike, etc. Therefore, there exists no operation of the 
animal soul, which could be accomplished without the 
body (organism)." 

Against this doctrine of Christian Philosophy, — that 
animals possess only sensitive faculties, but no real 
intelligence or reason, some modern scientists advance 
the following objections : 

They claim to have .detected slight differences in the 
skill of different bees of the same varieties ; — also, that 
some kinds of birds built their nests slightly diff er- 
ent from what they did formerly. " 

Let us" suppose that such discoveries are based on 
facts existing outside of the imagination of their dis- 
coverers, — what do they prove ? Not more than that, 
owing to some unknown influences, a slight change has 
been effected in the organisms of those animals, — and 
this change has called forth also a change in their 
way of operating. 

But that is nothing new. — Still greater differences in 
instinct may be observed among other animals ; for 
instance, among dogs of the same breed. — But such 
differences do not prove that at least a " small margin 

10. Summa Philosophica, Liber. II., Cep. 82. 



122 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

of intelligence " exists in these animals ; — all what they 
prove is, that the organism of such animals has been 
slightly changed, consequently also their instincts and 
modes of operation. 

Another objection often raised, is the following : By 
training, some animals, as dogs, horses, elephants, 
parrots, monkeys, canaries, and even — fleas, can be 
taught various amusing performances. — This proves, 
some imagine, that these animals possess intelligence. 
We answer : Intelligence has nothing to do with the 
learning of such performances ; — the sensitive memory 
it is, to which persons training such animals can, and 
do, appeal. — Mr. Rarey, the famous horse-tamer, who 
knew more about the real nature of a horse's so-called 
mental faculties, than many a theoretic scientist, was in 
the habit of prefacing his performances by a short 
lecture, in which he used to say — that he conquered the 
animals, "because he possessed reason, and the horse 
did not." " What is true of the horse, is true ot every 
other trained animal. 

Some scientists imagine to have discovered actions of 
animals, which cannot be explained without admitting 
that animals have intelligence. In an article on " Intel- 
ligence in Animals," R. A. Proctor ^^ relates several 
cases to the point ; for instance : monkeys were exceed- 
ingly careful in handling sharp tools, after having been 
cut once ; or, in opening paper-bags, after having been 
stung by a wasp concealed therein ; the muleteers in 
South America say, " I will not give you the mule whose 

11. Man and Beast, by Rev. I. G. Wood, New York, 1875, chapt. 2. 

13. Nature Studie's, New York, June 18, 1883, p. 118, etc. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 123 

ste]) is easiest, — ^biit la mas, racional (the most rational) ; " 
a rat, after noticing birds continually fluttering about a 
^vindow-sill, where they were fed, managed, with the help 
of a shrub, to climb up there, although it was a height 
of 13 feet ; some rats, to get at pure water, gnawed a 
hole in a leaden pipe ; a cat made use of the knocker 
of a side door, whenever it desired admission ; a small 
Eno^lish terrier which had been tauo-ht to rinsj the bell 
for the servant to come, would not ring when the 
servant was in the room ; etc. 

Such and similar instances are often appealed to, to 
prove that animals have — intelligence. Yet, there is 
nothing in such cases, that cannot be explained in 
accordance with the doctrine of Christian Philosophy, 
that no animal operation goes beyond the sensitive 
faculties. Even some modern scientists are gradually 
coming to this conviction. R. A. Proctor remarks, the 
theory has been " recently advocated by Huxley and 
others, that aninals are automata, not possessing 
consciousness ; " — by which, -perhaps, substantially the 
same faculty is meant, which Christian philosophers 
would call intelligent reflection. 

In the article referred to before, Mr. Proctor remarks : 
" Mr. Henslow makes a good point in noting how like 
the practical reasoning of animals, is the reasoning of 
young folks. ' A boy the other day,' he says, ' found the 
straps of his skates frozen. The fact only suggested 
cutting them. Not one of his school-fellows reflected 
upon the abstract fact that the ice would melt, if he sat 
upon his foot a few minutes. Hence brutes and boys 
are exactly alike in that nothino- occurs to either bevond 



124 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

what the immediate fact before them may suggest. The 
one kind I call purely practical reasoning, which both 
have ; the other abstract, which brutes can never acquire ; 
but the boy vnll, as his intelligence develops." 

Our modern scientists may be somewhat surprised to 
learn that substantially the same view has been held 
by Christian philosophers since many centuries. * * * 
St. Gregory of Nyssa, who lived about fifteen centuries 
ago, as quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, ^^ observes, that 
children and irrational beings (brutes) act voluntarily 
but not with free (intelligent) choice;" — that is, children 
whose intellectual faculties are not yet developed, and 
brutes, act in consequence of impressions on their sen- 
sative faculties, and not from free, abstractive intelli- 
gence, or reason. 

We therefore conclude, that Animal Instincts, or the 
operations of brutes, never go beyond the sphere of the 
sensitive faculties, whose exercise is completely depen- 
dent on the organism, — and that between Animal In- 
stinct and Human Reason there exists a similar essential^ 
not only gradual difference, as between the vegetative 
life of plants, and the sensitive faculties of brutes. 

Some modern scientists but betray their ignorance, 
when they make assertions like the following : ^* "The 
intelligence of animals, if not equal to man's, is at least 
like it, and * * * the difference between the oyster 
anchored to its rock and the homo sa^nens of Linnaeus 
are merely differences between more or less, degrees of 
succession that make up what is called the scale of being. 

13. Summa Theol. Prima Secundae, XIII, II. 

14. See The Popular Science Monthly, April, 1874, p. 729. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 125 

It is the latter opinion that has been declared (by whom?) 
triumphant (?) by the researches of natural history and 
those of comparative anatomy alike." 

Such unfounded and false assertions are often made 
by some writers on what they call "animal intelli- 
gence." Their false views on this subject have their 
origin in the confusion of the merely sensitive with the 
strictly intellectual faculties. Man possesses both kinds of 
faculties ; — being in "the scale of being" intermediate 
between pure spirits, or angels, and brutes, he partakes 
of the nature and faculties of both. Animals possess 
the sensitive faculties alone : the five external 
senses, — the sensus communis, as the Scholastics term 
it, which we may call, the centre in which the external 
sensations meet, — the imagmsLtion,— sensitive memory, — 
and the sensual appetites and instincts. — All these facul- 
ties are dependent for their operations on the corporal 
organism. — What animals do not possess, is intelligence, 
or reason, — free or intelligent will, — and intellectual 
memory. 

The best advice that can be given to such modern 
scientists as wish to be cured of their confusion of ideas, 
concerning the psychological faculties of man and ani- 
mals, is — to study the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, or 
of other sound Christian philosophers on this subject. 

A few remarks on the so-called "aesthetic sense in ani- 
mals" may be not out of place in this article. Some 
modern scientists, to prove that animals have intelli- 
gence, call attention to what they term "the aesthetic 
sense in animals." — "In their view," a writer ^^ re- 

15. The Popular Science Monthlj-, April 1874, pp. 729, etc. 



126 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

marks, "just as animals are endowed with intelligence 
as well as man, though in a lower degree, so in the same 
way and in the same proportion they are endowed with 
sense of beauty. They find the proof of this rather bold 
assertion * * * in sexual selection * * * Among all 
animals, they say, among insects, fish, birds, mammals, 
the male chooses his female, and the female chooses her 
male. If strength often determines the choice, so beauty 
often does too. The charms of graceful shapes, pleasing 
colors, fine notes, has great weight in settling the 
preference. * * * Hence all those displays of genuine 
coquetry, which may be easily observed, in pairing time, 
among all animals ; hence those attractions i^revailing 
through vigor of form, brilliant hues, and impassioned 
song. This general' fact * * * gives * * * ground for 
asserting that animals, having the perception of beauty, 
have consequently the aesthetic sense." 

If our modern scientists will keep clearly in view, as 
explained before, the diiference between sensitive im- 
pressions and intellectual perceptions, they Avill easily 
see the vast difference between the sensual emotions 
caused in animals, and the intellectual pleasures called 
forth in man by the beauty of objects. — Animals 
through their senses perceive only beautiful objects ; 
but man sees not only beautiful objects, but by an 
act of intellectual judgment he perceives also the 
beautiful hi abstracto in beautiful objects ; — which 
no animal does perceive. — Some beautiful objects, 
— individuals of the opposite sex of the same kind — , 
no doubt, do make a certain impression on the imagi- 
nation of animals, and through the imagination on 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 127 

the sensual appetite. But this impression does not by 
any means go beyond the sphere of sensation. The very 
fact that the only imaginable object of this impression 
is — to bring individual animals of the same species 
together, — and usually only at a certain time of the 
year, — shovv s that this impression is something merely 
sensual; — whereas man by his superior intellectual 
faculty perceives the beautiful in objects, not only in 
individuals of his own kind, but wherever it exists in 
nature ; not only at a certain time of the year, but 
always. 

Thus we see, that in man the aesthetic faculty is not 
dependent on certain sensitive influences alone, exer- 
cised on the organic structure, and that it is always 
active, wherever and whenever anything beautiful 
appears to him. 

How different it is with animals. Mr. Charles Leveque 
says : ^^ Place your animal before a work of art, represent- 
ing its male or its female, with a precision that deceives 
the eye * * * A dog would perhaps stop a moment in 
front of Oudry's hunting-pieces, if their frames were put 
on the floor, within reach of his look. He would come 
up, examine them, ask the canvass a single question with 
his infallible scent — and that would be all * * * It is 
not the expression of life in general that he wants ; it is 
life itself, individual life, life which speaks to his senses, 
and to that of smell much more strongly than to his 
eyes and ears. He has no concern with the general, the 
ideal, the admirable ; he understands nothing about 
them." 

16. The Popular Science Monthly, April, 1874, p. 731. 



128 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

We therefore conclude that the so-called " aesthetic 
sense in animals " is no more than the result of merely 
sensual impressions caused by seeing, etc., some indi- 
vidual of the same kind ; and the end for which the 
Creator has endowed animals with this sense, is no other 
than to direct the sexual selections of animals according 
to certain rules. A higher end, or object, this so-called 
"aesthetic sense in animals " has not. Quite different 
it is with the aesthetic faculty of man ; its objects are 
by no means, as with animals, only individuals of the 
same species and the opposite sex, — but all perceptible 
things beautiful in the physical, moral, and supernatural 
order. Man not only sees, like animals, beautiful objects, 
— but by his intelligence he perceives also the beautiful — 
in ahstracto — in the objects. The end for which the 
Creator has endowed man with the aesthetic faculty is 
not merely, as with animals, to direct sexual selection, 
but to raise him by the contemplation of created beauty 
to the source of all beauty, the Creator ; the vision of 
Whom shall for all eternity constitute the happiness of 
man. 

It is natural, then, for men to admire and enjoy 
what is beautiful in creation ; but they should always 
keep these words of the Book of Wisdom (13, 3) in 
mind : " Let them know how much the Lord of them 
is more beautiful than they (the created beings) : for 
the first Author of beauty made all those things." 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPAEED. 129 

3. THE RELATIONS OF BODY AXD MIXD IX MAN. 

Having examined the essential differences existing 
between man and brutes, let us next turn our attention 
to the relations of body and mind in man. 

As the reader will remember, Christian Philosophy- 
holds that in all visible beings there is a passive and an 
active principle, — which the Scholastics have termed 
" materia" and " forma. " — In man, the body is the pas- 
sive principle, — the mind, or soul, the active. Yet both 
are so intimately united as to constitute but one com- 
plete being, man. — Plato assumed that the relations 
between the soul, or mind, and the body, were some- 
what like those existing between a rider and the horse on 
which he rides. — But here we have two distinct complete 
beings, the horse and the rider. Christian Philosophy 
teaches, that body and soul constitute but one complete 
being, — man. Nevertheless, to some extent, Plato's com- 
parison of the soul and body — to a rider and his horse, may 
be admitted. — As a rider exercises some influence over 
the horse, — and the horse on the rider, — so does the 
soul over the body, and the body on the soul, though 
their mutual influences are incomparably more subtile 
and mysterious than those of the former. 

Alexander Bain, Professor in the University of Aber- 
deen, Scotland, says ^ on this subject : " The facts 
showing that the connexion of Mind and Body is not 
occasional or partial, but thorough-going and complete, 
are such as the following : In the first place, it has 
been noted in all ages and countries, that the Feelings 

1. Mind and Body— The Theories of Their Relations. 



130 • PSYCHOLOGY AND 

possess a natural language or Expression. * * * On 
this uniformity of connexion between feelings and their 
bodily expression depends our knowledge of each 
other's mind and character. * * * To the painter, 
the sculptor, and the poet, every feeling has its manifes- 
tation. * * * 

" A second class of proofs of the intimate connexion 
between Mind and Body is furnished by the effects of 
bodily changes on mental states, and of mental changes 
on bodily states. * * * As to the influence of 
bodily changes on mental states, we have such facts as 
— the dependence of our feelings and moods — upon 
hunger, repletion, the state of the stomach, fatigue and 
rest, pure and impure air, cold and "warmth, stimulants 
and drugs, bodily injuries, sleep, advancing years. 
These influences extend * * * to the highest 
emotions of the mind — love, anger, aesthetic feeling, 
and moral sensibility. * * * Bodily aflliction is 
often the cause of a change in the moral nature. — The 
bodily routine of our daily life is the counterpart of the 
mental routine. A healthy man wakens in the morning 
with a flush of spirits and energy. * * * Toward 
the end of day lassitude sets in, and fades into the deep 
unconsciousness of healthy sleep. 

" Since the intellectual faculties appear to be most 
removed from the effect of physical agencies, I will 
quote a few^ facts, showing that in reality they have no 
exemption from the general rule. — The memory rises 
and falls with the bodily condition ; being vigorous in 
our fresh moments, and feeble when we are fatigued 
and exhausted. Old age notoriously impairs the 



CHRISTIAN DOCTKIXES COMPARED. 131 

memoiy in ninety-nine men out of a hundred. * * * 
Why should sleep suspend all thought, except the 
incoherency of dreaming (absent in perfect sleep), if a 
certain condition of the bodily powers were not indis- 
pensible to the intellectual functions ? 

" The influence of mental changes upon the Body is 
supported by an equal force of testimony. Sudden out- 
bursts of emotion derange the bodily functions. Fear, 
paralysis, digestion, great mental depression, enfeebles 
all the organs. Protracted and severe mental labor 
brings on disease of the bodily organs. Gn the other 
hand, happy outward circumstances are favorable to 
health and longevity. 

*'In considering minutely the evidences of the con- 
nexion of mind and body, we gradually j^erceive that the 
organ most intimately associated with the mind is the 
Brain * * * Yet, although the Brain is by pre-eminence 
the mental organ, other organs co-operate ; more espe- 
cially the Senses, the Muscles, and the great Viscera 
* * * (The Brain) is a very large and complicated or- 
gan ; it receives a copious supply of blood, computed as 
one fifth of the entire circulation * * * Now the facts 
that connect the mind with the brain are numerous and 
irresistible. Let us rehearse a few of them, under the 
two aspects ; brain changes affecting the mind, mental 
changes affecting the brain. 

"Under the first topic, the commonest observation is 
the effect of a blow on the head, which suspends for the 
time consciousness and thought ; at a certain pitch of 
severity it produces a permanent injury of the faculties, 
impairing the memory, or occasioning some form of 



132 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

mental derangement. It may also remedy derangement ; 
there are cases on record, where a blow on the head has 
cured Idiocy. 

"All those abuses and casualties that impair the mental 
faculties act upon the nervous substance. Thus, stimu- 
lating drugs operate upon the nerves. Many instances 
of imbecility of mind are distinctly traced to causes af- 
fecting the nutrition of the brain. The more careful and 
studied observations of physiologists have shown beyond 
question that the brain as a whole is indispensible to 
thought, to feeling, and to volition ; while they have 
further discriminated the functions of Us different parts. 

"Xext, as regards mental changes leading to brain 
changes, or being associated with them, we can quote 
very extensive observations. Thus, after great mental 
exertion or excitement, . there is an increase of the pro- 
ducts of nervous waste * * * Again, violent emotions 
are among the causes of paralysis, which is a disease of 
the nerves or nerve centres. Most decisive of all, under 
this headj is the wide experience of the insane. Among 
the chief causes of insanity must be reckoned excessive 
drafts on the mind — as, for example, long and severe 
mental exertion, and sudden mental shocks, usually of 
disaster and misfortune, but occasionally even of joy. 
The association of brain derangement is all but a per- 
fectly established induction. In the great mass of in- 
sane patients the alteration of the brain is visible and 
pronounced * * * It is believed, however, that in all 
cases of pronounced mental aberration, disease of the 
brain is present in a marked form. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES COMPAEED. 133 

"A very instructive class of facts may be adduced, 
connecting mental action with the quantity and quality 
of the Mood supplied to the brain. Ko organ is active 
without blood. The demand made by the brain cor- 
res]3onds with the extent and energy of its functions. 
Deficiency in the circulation is accompanied with feeble 
manifestations of mind. In sleep, there is a diminution 
of the supply of arterial blood to the brain. General 
depletion lowers all the functions generally, mind in- 
cluded. On the other hand, when the cerebral circula- 
tion is quickened, the feelings are roused, the thoughts 
are more rapid, the Abolitions more vehement ; great 
mental excitement is always accompanied with an un- 
usual flow of blood, often outwardly shown by the 
throbbing of the vessels. In delirium, the circulation 
attains an extraordinary pitch. 

"The blood must possess a certain quality^ involving 
the presence of certain ingredients and the absence of 
others. Wholesome nourishment supplies the first con- 
dition of nervous and mental activity ; inanition or star- 
A'ation, feebleness of digestion, militate against the ex- 
ercise of the mental functions. Moreover, the blood 
may be abundant and rich in nutritive matters, yet the 
organ of the mind may be unduly depressed by the ex- 
cessive draft of the other interests of the system, as, for 
example, the muscles; under great muscular strain, there 
is very little capablity of mental effort. Again, there 
are certain substances, known as stimulants, that are con- 
sidered to supply the blood with an element especially 
provocative of nervous change ; as alcohol, tobacco, tea> 
opium, etc. 



134 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

"The substances that must be absent include the so- 
called poisons, and the impurity of the blood itself ^ 
which several large viscera are occupied in removing. 
The chief of these impurities are carbonic acid and urea; 
either of them left to accumulate in the blood leads to 
mental depression, unconsciousness, and finally death. 
Hence the mental tone depends no less upon the vigor- 
ous condition of the purifying organs — lungs, liver, in- 
testines, kidneys, skin — than upon the presence of nu- 
tritive material obtained from the food." 

These facts, to which many details could be added,, 
are quoted from the well known work of the late Prof. 
Alexander Bain, of Scotland, who has the • reputation of 
being one of the most prominent modern psychologists, 
to give the reader a clear idea of the most intimate con- 
nection existing between the body, especially the brain, 
and the mind of man. 

Since modern infidel scientists often appeal to such 
facts, to impugn the Christian doctrine of the immortality 
of the human soul, it is necessary to understand clearly, 
— that although the most intimate connexions exist be- 
tween the body and the mind, — these are yet per se two 
as distinct realities, as the rider and his horse, or as the 
musician and his instrument. 

As explained before, ^ the soul of man is the so-called 

1861, pp. 654-5. 

"forma" of the body ; but it must not be forgotten that 
it is the most perfect "forma" of any visible being. — 
The great theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aqui- 



2. See Institutiones Philosophicae, by M. Liberatoi-e, S. J., Romae, 



CHEISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPAEED. 135 

nas ^ says on this subject. "The more noble a forma is, 
the more it rules over corporeal matter, and the less it is 
immerged in the latter * * * The higher the nobility of 
the formae is, the more we find that their power exceeds 
that of elementary matter, — as the vegetative principle 
(anima) exceeds the elementary /brm//, and the sensitive 
soul, the vegetative principle. But the soul of man is 
the most exalted of the formae in the scale of perfection. 
Therefore it exceeds by its power (virtus) corporeal 
matter to such an extent, as to possess a certain faculty, 
of which corporeal matter has no part whatever, and this 
faculty is called the intellect." 

From this we see that Christian Philosophy not only 
teaches the most intimate union of body and soul, or 
mind, in man, but also clearly points out the essential 
difference between both. — What is true of the modus 
exlsteucU (mode of existence), is also true of the modus 
operandi (mode of operating). Man, in the scale of crea- 
tion, is intermediate between the brutes and the angels, 
partaking of the nature of both. Therefore, also, his 
peculiar modus operandi by his intelligence, is far above 
the faculties of brutes, yet far below the pure intelli- 
gence of angels. In human intelligence, to some extent, 
animal perception and purely spiritual, angelic in- 
telligence are blended. On the one hand, man, like 
the angels, perceives ideas — what the brutes do not ; 
but on the other hand, man needs in the exercise of his 
intelligence a faculty which he has in common with the 
brutes, — his imagination ; — what angels do not. 



3. Summa Theologica, P. I, qui^sto 76, art. 1. 



136 rSYCHOLOGY AND 

And here is the point that perplexes many a modern 
infidel scientist. Because man, in the exercise of his 
intelligence, continually makes use of the imagination, 
with which also animals are endowed, — and because, if 
this imagination is disordered, also the human intellect 
cannot properly perform its operations, — therefore some 
infidel scientists claim that the soul of man is not essen- 
tially different from that of the animal, — and will conse- 
quently once share the fate of the latter — perish. 

Here we must remember what was explained in a 
former article. — In this visible universe there exist these 
four great divisions of beings, that rise above each 
other as distinct planes : — The inorganic material 
elements, the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom, 
and man. Now, it is a general law of this visible uni- 
verse, that every higher division, or plane, of existence 
is, in its operations, dependent on the division, or plane, 
immediately below it. — Thus plants, in order to grow, 
depend on a fair supply of inorganic elements — air, 
light, water, and mineral nourishment. — Animals, again, 
to exercise the faculties of sensation peculiar to them, 
depend on the good condition of their vegetative nature. 
A starving animal will loose its faculties of sensation in 
proportion to its starvation ; in order to be able to ex- 
ercise its sensitive faculties well, it is necessary that an 
animal be sufficiently fed. — Now man, in order to exer- 
cise his faculty of intelligence, or reason, is depen- 
dent on the healthy state of his sensitive faculties, — 
especially of his imagination, which presents to him 
the objects on which his intelligence will operate. 



CHKISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPAKED. 137 

Since tliis point is of the greatest importance, to get a 
clear idea of the relations of body, or brain, and mind 
let us examine it more carefully. 

As explained before, man possesses not only all the 
sensitive faculties of the most perfect animals, but be_ 
sides, and beyond these, intellectual, spiritual faculties — 
intelligence or reason, free will, and intellectual memory. 
The intellect is the source or foundation of all spiritual 
faculties of man. It is the intellect by which he obtains 
the ideas. This intellect, when drawing conclusions 
from given premises, is called reason. This intellect 
which guides the selection of objects in certain cases, 
is the source of will. This intellect, finally, which not 
only forms ideas, but also retains them, is the intellectual 
memory. 

Now, Christian -Philosophy teaches : It is impossible 
for our intellect, in the present state of existence, whilst 
it is united with a body subject to change, to understand 
(intelligere) anything, except by turning its attention on 
phantasmata, that is, representations of the interior sense 
and the imagination. — St. Thomas * adds : "This every 
one can observe with himself ; for if any-one tries to 
understand anything, he forms to himself some phantas- 
mata (representations of the imagination), — as it were, 
examples, in which, we may say, he looks at what he 
endeavors to understand. And therefore also, if we 
wish to make anything clear to anyone, we propose to 
him examples, from which he may form for himself 
2)hantasmata, in order to understand." — Thus we 

4. Summa Theologica, I. P., Quaest. 84; art. 7. 



138 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

see that, in the present state of life, the exercise of our 
intelligence depends on our faculties of sensation and 
imagination, somewhat like the eye that sees, on its vis^ 
ible object. For the imagination presents the objects, 
which the intellect is to understand. 

Now, we know that sometimes the eye is hindered from 
seeing ; for instance, when a cataract has been formed on 
the crystalline lens of the eye; — or the eye may see, but 
not correctly, as, for instance, if one looks through red, 
blue, etc., spectacles. Although the eye may, in such cases, 
not see, or not see correctly, yet the eye itself, or more 
properly the retina which receives the impressions, may be 
perfectly sound. If the cataract, or the colore d spectacles 
will be removed, the eye will again see correctly. — In a 
similar manner it is with the human intellect. The intel- 
lect itself, being a purely spiritual faculty, cannot be 
subject to disease ; but the imagination, the medium by 
which phantasmata are presented to the intellect, being 
a sensitive faculty, may become disordered, and then the 
intellect will have no proper objects to contemplate. — 
Therefore St. Thomas^ teaches : "We see that when the 
imagination is impeded by an injury done to the organ 
* * * Qjig ig prevented from understanding even 
things of which one had a knowledge before." — In such 
cases, not only the intellect but also the will ajid the 
memory may become disordered as to their operations. 

This, then, explains satisfactorily all those phenomena 
concerning the relations between body and mind, to 
which modern infidels often appeal as to proofs against 
the spirituality of the human soul. 
5. L. c. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 139 

Long before so-called Modern Science existed, Chris- 
tian philosophers had explained how the human soul 
can be spiritual and immortal, although people may be- 
come insane, or lose their memory ; although they may 
be affected by alcoholic drinks, etc. ; although the intel- 
ligence seems to grow and decay with man ; etc. 

In all such cases, it is not the human intellect that 
is directly affected, but only its sensitive medium, 
the organs of sensation and imagination — which 
are subject to various disorders caused by physical in- 
fluences. 

4. THE IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 

What is matter ? What is force ? What are the 
mysterious principles that make plants grow, animals 
feel, and man think ? — These are questions which 
modern scientists can answer no more, than Aristotle 
could two thousand years ago. 

Modern Science has, no doubt, made immense progress 
in investigating the various phe^wniena of the visible 
world, — the outside shells of things, Ave may say ; but 
the intrinsic natures of the principles of activity and life 
cannot be reached b}' the microscope or any other con- 
ceivable instrument ; they remain as mysterious as ever. 

For this reason, Modern Science can teach nothing 
new concerning to the Immortality of the Human Soul. 
The plieytomemt resulting from the relations of body and 
mind havje centuries ago been, substantially, as clearly 
known to Christian philosophers, as they are now to 
our modern scientists ; and centuries ago. Christian 
philosophers, as St. Thomas Aquinas, have triumphantly 



140 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

refuted such objections against the Immortality of the 
Soul, as some modern infidel scientists imagine to have 
now been discovered for the first time. 

Among the reasons why Christian Philosophy has al- 
ways maintained the Immortality of the Human Soul, 
are the following: ^ 

Of all visible beings, man alone has a desire for life 
without end ; he alone can reflect on immortality, and 
shudders at the idea of annihilation, as at something 
contrary to the nature of his being. — Whereas animals, 
even the most perfect, give no evidence of having any 
idea, or desire, of an existence without end. Being en- 
dowed, as was explained before, only with sensitive fa- 
culties that depend entirely on material impressions 
and changes of the organism, animals perceive but 
objects existing in the present. Concerning a dis- 
tant future, no animal troubles itself ; it has no idea 
of personal immortality ; it feels only present pleasure or 
pain. 

Now, why should the Creator have endowed man with 
the faculties of comprehending, and most decidedly 
longing after, immortality, if this should not be granted 
to him ? 

Moreover, the Creator has, as explained before, en- 
dowed m^n with the intellectual faculties of perceiving 
and enjoying the true and the beautiful. As the intellect 
of man craves for the knowledge of truth, so his will 
craves for the enjoyment of the beautiful. Now, both 



1. See Institutiones Philosophicae, by P. M. Liberatore, p. 636, etc, 
and St. Thomas' Summa Philosophica, Liber. II., 83. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 141 

of these faculties are never fully satisfied in this life ; 
they find no rest, until the rest in Him Who is the 
source of all truth and all beauty. 

Why should the Creator have endowed man with 
these faculties, if they should never be satisfied ? 

Divine Revelation (John 17, 3.) teaches : "This is life 
everlasting : that they may know Thee, the only true 
God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent." 

God alone Who is the Source of all truth and "the 
first Author of beauty" (Wisdom 13, 3), can fully satisfy 
the longings of the human soul after infinite truth and 
the infinitely beautiful. 

Another reason which points to the immortality of 
man, is the very idea of moral order. — The actions of 
animals are confined within the limits of the physical 
nature. Animals perform actions, or omit them, in conse- 
quence of certain physical impulses, or influences, over 
which they have no control. Their admirable instinct 
teaches them what they must do, and what avoid, or 
flee. A higher object than to gratify their natural im- 
pulses, is unknown to them. 

Quite different it is with man. He not only feels what 
is agreeable or disagreeable to his sensitive appetites, 
but he also perceives a higher, a more sublime law which 
is to govern his conduct. — His conscience tells him that 
certain acts are good, others praiseworthy, others heroic, 
and some bad, contemptible, and damnable. His con- 
science warns him against doing evil, and encourages 
him to do good. His will has liberty either to follow 
or disobey the dictates of his conscience, which always 
admonishes him to act according to the principles of 



142 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

morality, of the rational order which God has estab- 
lished for intelligent beings to observe. Now, if 
man's life were to end with the death of his 
body, it would then, at the end, be all the same, 
whether a man had observed the moral order estab- 
lished by the Creator, or whether he had trampled every 
one of its principles under foot. It would, then, be all 
the same, whether a man would have been a kind father, 
a charitable friend of the poor, a virtuous husband, a 
just person in all respects, or whether he would have been 
a tyrant or a iiend that continually abused his family, that 
murdered his wife and children, that cheated, stole, and 
robbed, that committed all impurities possible, that, 
with one word, was a scourge to all who unfortunately 
came in contact with him. 

Such an idea as that at the end it would be all the same, 
whether a man had been all his lifetime just, kind, and 
pure-minded, — or whether he had been a treacherous, 
cruel, and filthy demon, — is most revolting to the 
sublime sense of justice, which the Creator Himself has 
implanted in the soul of every man. If man were 
mortal, the Creator would, what is impossible, have 
made Himself guilty of deceiving man by endowing 
him with this noble sense of justice. 

Thus we see that the Creator Himself has deeply 
implanted in man faculties which point to an existence 
far beyond the grave, — to immortality. This conviction 
is so deeply implanted in man, that we find all nations, 
whether ancient or modern, whether barbarous or 
civilized, most profoundly penetrated by it. 



CHRISTIAN D0CTEIXE3 COMPARED. 143 

No doubt, as Holy Scripture (Ps. 13) says: "The 
fool hath said in his heart : There is no God," conse- 
quently no immortality ; but let it be remembered, — 
the fool only " says " so ; — he is not conyinced 
of it ; — for as the famous philosopher Bacon of 
Yerulam observed : ^ "It appeareth in nothing more, 
that atheism is rather on the lip than in the heart of 
man, than by this, that atheists will eyer be talking of 
that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within them- 
selyes, and would be glad to be strengthened by the 
consent of others. * * =!= If they did truly think 
that there were no such thing as God, why should they 
trouble themselyes ? " 

There are, now and then, some unfortunate men who 
declare that they do not belieye in immortality. But 
their declaration is energetically contradicted by their 
own conscience, which revolts at the yery idea of anni- 
hilation. 

Abbe MuUois, Chaplain to Emperor Napoleon III., 
remarks ^ on this point : " It is not rare, indeed, to 
meet with men who call themselyes unbelieyers, who 
assert it, and who write themselyes such ; but will you 
find men who are seriously unbelieyers, and Aylio do 
not falter in their negations ? A pious priest who 
was frequently called upon to attend the sick in the 
higher classes of society in Paris, was once asked 
whether he often met with men who had ceased to be" 
lieye. He replied : ' Pray, don't allude to the subject* 
Though I haye been long accustomed to minister great 

2. Essay on Atheism. 

3. The Clergy and the Pulpit, Chapt. 3. 



144 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

sinners, I have never yet had the good fortune to lay my 
hand on one who was even a little unbelieving. As re- 
gards the faith, men in general are better than their 
words or their writings either.' — As has been well re- 
marked : The man Avho, in all sincerity, says : *I don't 
believe,' often deceives himself. There is in the depths 
of his heart a root of faith which never dies." 

To this same truth, many centuries ago, the famous 
ancient writer TertuUian called attention. His observa- 
tion "Anima humana Christiana" — Man's soul is natur- 
ally Christian — is 'confirmed by the fact that, in spite of 
a few infidels now and then, all nations preserve religi- 
ous convictions, even if the expressions of their reli- 
gious feelings are sometimes wrong. 

Therefore we say : — although now and then an infidel 
may pretend not to believe in immortality, yet this be- 
lief has been so firmly imprinted by the Creator in the 
human soul, that no sophistry is able to destroy it. 
Although some individuals may, in spite of their revolt- 
ing consciences, proclaim to believe in their future com- 
plete death, yet all nations will continue to cherish firmly 
the conviction that the grave is not the final goal of 
man ; that beyond the graive there is another, a more 
permanent life, where we are also to meet our dear 
friends again, that have gone before us. 

What now has Modern Science to Say on this subject? 
As remarked before, modern scientists, — with all their 
boasting about progress, — are to-day as little able, as 
Aristotle was more than two thousand years ago, to ex- 
plain what matter or force is, what makes grass grow, 



CHEISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMrARED. 145 

or a worm feel ; much less are they able to give any new 
verdict on the nature and destiny of the human soul. — 
Whatever the human soul may be, it is, our conscious- 
ness teaches us, the source of our intelligence and free 
will ; it is that one principle which sees by means of the 
eyes, hears by the means of the ears, speaks by means 
of the tongue, etc.; it is that one life-giving force which 
unites all the manifold material component parts of the 
human body into one body, which it causes to grow, and 
which it governs and uses as an instrument, to accomplish 
the objects of its rational will. Modern scientists accept 
as a fundamental principle the indestructibility of mat- 
ter and the persistence, or conservation, of force. They 
say, so far as observation reaches, we find that wherever 
matter or force undergo any changes, they are not des- 
troyed, but only assume different modes of existence. 
The reason of this, no doubt, is, because what the 
Creator has once created, no creature is able to destroy, 
— although it may cause accidental changes. Therefore, 
modern scientists consider it an established truth that 
no particle of matter, and no minimum of force, in the 
existing order of nature, is destroyed by natural 
changes. Applying, then, this principle to the human 
soul modern scientists must say : Whatever the 
inmost nature of the human soul may be, it is no doubt 
a force, and the most noble to be found in the visible 
creation. Therefore, although it may cease to use the 
body as its instrument, yet this force itself must con- 
tinue to exist, or, what is the same, this force must be 
immortal. 



146 -PSYCHOLOGY AND 

What will be the mode of existence or operation 
of the human soul after leaving the body, Mod- 
ern Science is unable to decide. We will, therefore, 
have to look for instruction on this point to Divine 
Revelation and Christian Philosophy. 

Before doing this, let us examine some points that 
may interest curious readers. What is the origin of the 
human soul ? What is the final destiny of the life- 
giving principles of plants and animals ? 

Divine Revelation teaches, that God Himself created 
the soul of the first man. Gen. 2, 7. — It is the unani- 
mous doctrine of prominent Catholic theologians, that 
this is the case with the soul of every man; it is directly 
created by God. Therefore we read Ecclesiastes 12, 1. 
of man : " The dust (body) returns into its earth, from 
whence it was, and the spirit returns to God, Who gave 
it." 

Can modern scientists prove the contrary ? Certainly 
not. They may assert that — as far as ohservatio7i 
reaches — neither matter nor force are destroyed, — nor do 
they spring into existence from nothing ; for all this can 
be done by the word of the Creator alone. Yet the origin 
of the human soul is one of those mysteries that lie far 
beyond the reach of scientific investigation. Prof. Asa 
Gray^ observes that "increments of force by Divine 
action in time * * * could never in the least be 
known to science." Therefore, if Christian Philosophy 
teaches that God, in the order of nature established 
and every moment upheld by His will, is the Creator 



5. Natural Science and Religion, p. 96. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 147 

of every human soul, all what modern scientists can 
reply, is : Well, we cannot prove the contrary : for 
this is a matter that is beyond the reach of our means 
of observation. 

Now, what becomes of the life-giving principles of 
animals and plants, when these cease to live ? Although 
Divine Revelation has not deemed it necessary to give 
man a decisive answer to this question, and Modern 
Science cannot, it is nevertheless of interest to purely 
speculative philosophy. We shall therefore quote the 
followinoj remarks — without deciding^ on them — from a 
work of the famous Spanish philosopher J. Balmes : ^ 
*' What, then, will be the fate of these souls, or vital 
forces, when the organism to which they give life shall 
be destroyed ? Shall they relapse into nonentity ? 
* * * Shall they continue to exist ? Shall they, 
perhaps, be destined to govern a new organism ? * * * 
Before all, we must take notice, that we are here dealing 
in conjectures that have more reference to possi- 
Mity than to reality. Philosophy may let us anticipate 
what can be, but not what really is; for the reality 
could be made known to us only by experience ; but 
this is wanting in this case. * * * A created being 
is continually in need of being upheld in existence by 
the Creator. * * * When the object ceases for which 
something has been created, why could we not assume 
that this something will again be annihilated ? I do not 
perceive that this would be contrary to Divine Wisdom 
or Goodness. Yet, let us assume that we do not wish 



6. Fundaments of Philosophy, Vol. II., Chapt. 



148 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

to take refuge to annihilation, is it impossible that they 
(the life-giving principles of plants or animals) will con- 
tinue to exist ? — For what purposes could they serve ? — 
I know not ; but the assumption may be admitted, that 
they might, again absorbed by the ocean of nature, be of 
some further use * * * Who has told us, that the vital 
principles of animals have no object any more to serve 
after the destruction of the organism which they enliv- 
ened ? Does the destruction of a plant annihilate all its 
vital forces ? * * * Who has told us that a vital force 
can be of use only as long as it exercises its influence 
on an object within the reach of our observation ?" 

From this we see that Christian Philosophy may leave 
undecided the question, what becomes of the vital prin- 
ciples of plants or animals, after the destruction of the 
organisms to which they gave life. — Quite different, as 
explained before, it is with the soul of man, that free 
spiritual image of God. That this soul is immortal, is 
taught both by Divine Revelation and sound Reason ; 
and modern scientists have not the slightest solid argu- 
ment to advance against this doctrine. 

5, THE HUMAN SOUL AFTER THE DEATH OF THE BODYy 
AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Divine Revelation teaches that the soul of man is im- 
mortal ; and modern scientists have nothing to advance 
against this doctrine. Now, one may ask : What will 
be state of the human soul after the death of the body ? 

In the first place, the soul will continue to exist only 
in its purely spiritual nature, similar to the angels. In 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES C0:MPAIIED. 149 

the second place, the soul will continue to exercise its 
spiritual^ but not its sensitive faculties, which man, in 
his present state of life, has in common with the more 
perfect animals. For, to exercise the sensitive faculties, 
corporeal organs, as eyes, ears, brain, etc., are necessary, 
and these perish with the body. 

The great theologian and philosopher Suarez ^ teaches 
on this subject : "The soul separated (from the body) 
preserves the same subsistence which it had whilst in 
the body ; nor does it change its entity (nature), but only 
its mode of existence ; it thereby neither gains nor loses 
anything essential. * * * In the separated soul there 
remain the intellect, the will, and the power to move 
itself, as also the natural habits of the intellect and 
will, acquired in this life ; moreover, the intel- 
lectual species (ideas,) but not the species (phantasmata) 
and habits that belong to the sensitive faculties. There' 
fore, the separated soul can understand and will ; it 
knows all things which it knew in life, by means of the 
acquired ideas. It even understands better (melius in- 
telligit) than it did when yet united to the body : for 
it understands independently of phantasmata." 

St. Thomas ^ remarks that the separated soul is, to a 
certain extent, more at liberty in understanding (quodam 
modo est liberior ad intelligendum) in as far as, in 
this life, the purity of its intelligence is obscured by the 
grossness (gravedo) of the body, whose sensitive faculties 
present the phantasmata for the operations of the intellect 



Theologiae Summa, Seu Compendium, Vol. I, Tom. III. 
Summa Theologica, Pars I, quaestlo 89, art. 2. 



150 PSYCHOLOGY AND 

Although, then, the soul continues to exist without 
the body, and although it can continue to exercise its 
purely spiritual faculties in the future life, yet it must not 
be forgotten that the soul of man was not intended by 
the Creator to have a purely spiritual existence, like the 
angels, — but to be united with a body, — to be the con- 
necting link between the material and purely spiritual 
worlds. Therefore, Christian theologians teach that the 
natural tendency or longing of the separated soul is, to 
be again united with the body (naturalis est animae 
conditio uniri corpori). 

Divine Revelation teaches that this quite natural 
longing of the separated souls shall once be gratified ; 
— they shall again be united with their bodies on the 
day of the general resurrection. 

Now, what has Modern Science to advance against 
this doctrine ? Certainly, no solid argument whatever. 
In the first place. Modern Science not only admits, but 
firmly holds that, in the existing order of things, no 
atom of matter nor the least amount of force can be 
destroyed by any created agency. Hence modern 
scientists will have to admit that, as far as scientific 
researches go, there is no reason to doubt that all atoms, 
or particles, of all the human bodies that ever existed, 
are still extant, and will continue to be so, as long as the 
present order of nature exists. 

In the second place, modern scientists have no plaus- 
ible reason for denying that God may, either directly 
or by the mediation of angels, cause all particles that 
ever belonged to a body, to be suddenly attracted by, or 
united to, the soul that once enlivened that body. For 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 151 

even in the present visible world we see that the 
Creator has endowed some created beings with the 
power of attracting others. It is well known that a 
powerful magnet will, as soon as it is brought suf- 
ficiently near, suddenly attract filings or pieces of iron, 
which may be hidden in dust or ashes. We know that in 
our solar system every celestial body, to some extent, 
attracts the other. If, then, material bodies, distant 
from one another many millions of miles, can exercise 
such a power of mutual attraction, why should not the 
Creator be able to endow also the human soul with the 
power of attracting suddenly, at the appointed moment 
of resurrection, all the particles that belonged to the 
body to which it had before given life ? 

But some infidel scientist might suggest, it may 
happen that some particles become component parts 
of the bodies of different persons ; as, for instance, 
when cannibals eat the flesh of other people, or when 
men eat vegetables that have incorporated some 
material atoms once before belon^jfins^ to the bodies of 
other persons. 

We reply : In the first place, we know that no man 
incorporates in his bodily texture, all he eats. — There- 
fore, it might happen under God's providence that no 
man ever really and permanently incorporates in his 
body particles essentially belonging to the body of 
another. Secondly, physiologists teach that the compo- 
nent particles of our bodies are continually undergoing 
some changes — new ones are gained, old ones lost. 
Yet, our bodies remain substantially the same, whether 
some few particles are added or lost. Therefore, even 



1.^9 



THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 



if it should happen that some few particles would 
become successively incorporated with different bodies, 
Modern Science can yet advance no evidence to prove 
that not enough particles of every body would be left, 
to constitute again substantially the same former bodies. 
The famous theologian J. Perrone, S. J., observes : ^ 
" To constitute the identity of th« body, the identity of 
every single molecule of matter is by no means required; 
* * * it suffices, that the essential parts be preserved, 
to restore the identical body." 

From this we see, that Modern Science can advance 
no well founded argument against the doctrine of the 
Resurrection. 



VII. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN THE 
ORGANIC WORLD. 

TITAVING examined what both Christian Philosophy 
and Modern Science teach concerning matter and 
life, concerning the principles of vegetative life, of ani- 
mal sensation, and of human intelligence, or reason, and 
concerning the higher destiny and immortality of man : 
we will have to examine next these questions : — Did God 
create all the different species of plants and animals, 
that now exist, separately ? Or were the numberless 
different species now existing gradually evolved, under 
God's guiding providence, from some few, or perhaps 
only one directly created organism; as the leaves, flowers, 
and fruits of a tree are gradually evolved from a single 
given seed, or germ ? 

3. Praelectiones Theologicae, Vol. V., Cap. VII. 



CHEISTIAX DOCTKIXES COMPARED. 153 

Since, probably, no other scientific questions have, of 
late years, been discussed more throughout Christendom 
than these, they deverve our special attention. 

It is beyond doubt true, that the immense majority 
of Christians have for many centuries been under the 
impression, that the various kinds of plants and animals, 
which have appeared on our Earth, were not gradually, in 
the course of ages, but quite suddenly called into 
existence by the Creator. Milton but expressed the then 
general belief of Christians, when he Avrote : 

"The sixth, and of creation last, (day) arose 
With evening harps and matin, when God said : 
Let the earth bring forth soul living in her kind, 
Cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the Earth, 
Each in their kind ! The Earth obeyed, and, straight 
Opening her womb, teemed at a birth 
Innumerous living creatures, perfect forms, 
Limbed and full-grown. Out of the ground up rose, 
As from his lair, the wild beast ; 
The cattle in the fields and meadows green, etc." 

Xow, many modern scientists are decidedly in favor 
of the so-called "theory of evolution;" that is, they 
maintain, that the various species of animals and plants, 
now existing, have been evolved from a few, or a single, 
formerly existing, simpler forms; and these again have 
been evolved, as Huxley ^ thinks, from "undifferentiated 
protoplasmic matter which, so far as our present 
knowledge goes, is the common foundation of all vital 
activity." 

Herbert Spencer is of the opinion that all phenomena 
of our visible universe are to be explained by the laws 
1. Lectui-es on Evolution. Lecture I. 



154 THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 

of evolution. He observes:^ "From the earliest trace- 
able cosmical changes down to the latest results of civi- 
lization, we shall find that the transformation of the 
homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which 
progress essentially consists." 

This theory of evolution has become exceedingly 
popular among modern scientists, especially through the 
influence of Laplace and Darwin. The former availed 
himself of this theory, to explain the origin of our present 
solar (or cosmic) system ; the latter, to explain the origin 
of the now existing numberless species of plants and 
animals. 

Having in a former article sufliciently explained the 
theory of Laplace, and its relation to Christian Doctri- 
nes, we shall now turn our attention to the theory of 
evolution as applied to the organic world. 

In the conclusion of his famous work "On the Origin 
of Species" (Fifth Edition) Darwin remarks : "Authors 
of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with 
the view that each species has been independently crea- 
ted. To my mind it accords better with what we know 
of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the 
production and extinction of the past and present inha- 
bitants of the world should have been due to secondary 
causes, like those determining the birth and death of the 
individual. When I view all beings not as S23ecial crea- 
tions, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings 
which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian 
system was deposited, they seem to me to become 



3. Progress : Its Law and Cause. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 155 

ennobled * * * It is interesting to contemplate a tangled 
bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with 
birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting 
about, and with worms crawling through the damp 
earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed 
forms, so different from each other, and dependent on 
each other in so complex a manner, have all been produ- 
ced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the 
largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction ; In- 
heritance which is almost implied by reproduction ; 
Variability from the indirect and direct action of the 
conditions of life, and from use and disuse ; a Ratio of 
Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as 
a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence 
of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. 
Thus, from the war of Nature, from famine and death, 
the most exalted object which we are capable of con- 
ceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, 
directly follows. — There is grandeur in this view of life, 
with its several powers, having been originally breathed 
by the Creator into a few forms or into one ; and that, 
while this planet has gone . cycling on according to the 
fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endles 
forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, 
and are being, evolved." 

These words explain what is called — Darwinism. We 
see that Darwin's theory rests on the following assump- 
tions : 1. All existing species of organic beings have 
descended from a few, or perhaps only one form, into 
which the Creator originally breathed life. 2. The 
causes which effected the immense multiplication of 



156 THEOKY OF EVOLUTION AND 

organic sj'yecies were : Variability in Growth and Re- 
production, a Struggle for Existence, in which the more 
favorably or perfectly constituted individuals survived, 
— or were Selected by Nature, — and the Inheritance of 
acquired qualities or perfections. 

Here these questions arise : Does not Darwinism 
contradict the divinely revealed Mosaic Account of the 
Creation ? Is Darwinism founded on undeniable facts ? 

The learned Jesuit-Father, F. von Hummelauer, ob- 
serves : ^ " From what has been said one will easily see 
what the commentator of the biblical account of the 
Creation will think of Darwinism. We do not mean 
by Darwinism that gross error which sees in rational 
man no more than a highly developed ape. We here 
mean by Darwinism only that view, according to which 
all species of plants and animals have descended from 
a few, perhaps only one, original, perfectly simple form. 
It is, of course, not our object either to combat or 
defend this view (Darwinism) ; only that much we wish 
to establish that it, by no means, contradicts Genesis I. 
(that is, the divinely revealed Mosaic Account of the 
Creation). Darwinism lets only the first forms of life, 
or the one original form of all life, proceed immediately 
from the hand of God. The book of Genesis teaches 
that Adam saw (in a vision) all plants and animals 
" according to their kind " come into existence at the 
command of God. From this we have to infer only, 
that the book of Genesis ascribes the origin of all life to 
God, but whether this origin reaches back to the 



3. Der biblische Schoepfungsbericht, p. 149. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 157 

Creator mediately or immediately, on this question we 
need not expect an explanation from Genesis, which (in 
describing the vision of Adam) had to pass over the 
intermediate links, if such existed." 

From this we see that the Darwinian theory, provided 
it does not go so far as to degrade man to a species 
of apes, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the 
Mosaic Account of the Creation ; although, of course, 
we do not intend to say that this Account teaches 
Darwinism. What we read in Genesis on this sub- 
ject is : " God saith : Let the earth bring forth the 
green herb * * * ^nd the fruit tree yielding fruit 
after its kind. * * * And it was so done." Gen. 
1, 11. Again: "God said: Let the waters bring 
forth the creeping creature. * ^f^ * Let the earth 
bring forth the living creature in its kind. * * * 
And it Avas so done." Gen. 1, 20, 24. From this we 
see that the Mosaic Account teaches that the existing 
kinds of plants and animals vnere hr ought forth hy the 
Earth and the loater at the command of God. But 
whether these kinds of organic beings were brought 
forth at once, at the command of God, as most 
Christians believed, — or whether they came, under 
God's guiding providence, gradually into existence, as 
Darwin assumes, — on these points the Mosaic Account 
gives us no information. Consequently, on these points, 
there may be permitted, without danger of contradict- 
ing Divine Revelation, a great latitude of opinion 
among Christians. 

We, therefore, need not be surprised to learn, that St. 
Augustin, the perhaps most profound and philosophic 



158 THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 

of the ancient doctors of the Church, in various works 
mentioned by Dr. Carl Guettler*, expressed views decided" 
ly favoring the theory of evolution. If one compares the 
views of St. Augustin with the speculations of Darwin, 
one might be tempted to look upon St. Augustin as the 
venerable teacher who advanced some grand comprehen- 
sive ideas, which his disciple Darwin has explained more 
in detail. 

Dr. Carl Guettler remarks : "According to the view 
of this great doctor of the Church (St. Augustin), the 
entire inorganic and organic nature was created poten- 
tialiter atque causaliter (potentially and causably) at the 
same time with matter (Eccl. 18, l), out of the in- 
formitas (formlessness) of which it (the entire inorganic 
and organic nature) was per temporis moras (in the 
course of time) developed. The world, at the beginning 
was like a seed which contained all the constituent parts 
of the future tree in itself invisibiliter (invisibly). Since 
St. Augustin considers also the body of man to have 
been created invisibiliter, potentialiter, causaliter (in- 
(invisibly, potentially and causably) with the (original) 
matter, — and since he (St. Augustin) considers it (the 
human body) as a developed product of matter, — he, in 
principle, adhered to a theologically interpreted theory 
of evolution (that is, an evolution under God's will and 
guiding providence)." 

These views of St. Augustin have by no means been 
repudiated as inconsistent with the Mosaic Account by 
the great Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages. St. 



4. Naturforschung und Bibel, p. 145. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 159 

Thomas, commenting on Genesis 2, 4 — 5, observes : ^ 
"In the day, when God created Heaven and Earth, he 
created also every herb of the field, not actually, but 
before it grew upon Earth, that is, potentially." 

From all this we see that the leading idea of Darwin- 
ism, — the gradual evolution of the existing species 
of plants and animals, need not shock any believer in 
the Mosaic Account, which ascribes only the creation of 
all things to God, but does not describe the exact manner 
of the creation. 

Some short-sighted infidels have imagined, the Dar- 
winian theory would help them to do away with the 
Creator. Darwin himself, by no means, considered the 
Creator superfluous ; he was too intelligent a student of 
nature for that. He knew, without a Creator, it would 
be impossible to account for the origin of life. Therefore 
he assumed that life had "been originally breathed by 
the Creator into a few forms, or into one." Also the 
guiding providence of the Creator, in bringing forth, 
from quite simple forms of life, the countless now exist- 
ing species, — has not been made superflous by Darwin's 
theory. — On the contrary, assuming the Darwinian theory 
to be correct, one Avill have to exclaim, as Prof. John Le 
Conte did in reference to the theory of Laplace : "How 
simple the means — how multiform the effects — how far- 
reaching and grand the design ! How deeply they imj^ress 
us with the wisdom, power, and glory of the Creator and 
Governor of the Universe !" ^ 



5. Summa Theologica, Pai's I, Quest. 74, Art. II. 

6. The Popular Monthly Science, April, 1873, p. 65.5-6. 



160 THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 

But Darwinianism must clear away some important 
difficulties, before it can be considered a well-founded 
theory, as we shall see from the following. Let us 
examine : First, the facts that seem to favor the Darwi- 
nian theory ; secondly, the facts that seem to contradict 
the same ; and thirdly, the facts which Darwin's theory 
cannot explain or prove. 

Mr. George J. Romanes has published a little volume 
entitled "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution;" 
and since he publicly declared (London, June 1, 1882) 
that "Darwin thought well of the epitome of his doc- 
trine," we will briefly call attention to the groups of 
facts which Mr. Romanes advances in favor of Darwin's 
theory. 

He observes : " I first take the argument from 
classification. Naturalists find that all species of plants 
and animals present among themselves structural affini- 
ties. * * * Our system of classification, therefore, may 
be likened to a tree, in which a short trunk may be taken 
to represent the lowest organisms which cannot properly 
be termed either plants or animals. This short trunk 
soon separates into two large trunks, one of which rep- 
resents the vegetable and the other the animal kingdom. 
Each of these trunks then gives oif long branches 
signifying classes, and these give off smaller, but more 
numerous branches, signifying families, which ramify 
again into orders, genera, and finally into the leaves, 
which may be taken to represent species. Now, in such 
a representative tree of life, the height of any branch 
from the ground may be taken to indicate the grade of 
organization which the leaves, or species, present ; so 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 161 

that, if we picture to ourselves such a tree, we shall 
understand that while there is a general advance of 
organization from below upwards, there are numberless 
slight variations in this respect between leaves growing 
even on the same branch." 

Mr. Romanes' second argument in favor of Darwin's 
theory is based on Morphology, or the structure of 
plants and animals. He remarks : " The theory of 
evolution by natural selection supposes that hereditary 
characters admit of being slowly modified, wherever 
their modification will render an organism better suited 
to a change in its conditions of life. ^ * ^ These 
changes would, in the first instance, begin to affect the 
least typical — that is, the least strongly inherited 
structures, such as the skin, claws, and teeth, etc. But 
as time went on, the adaptation would begin to extend 
to the more typical structures." In conformity with this 
view, Mr. Romanes tries to explain how terrestrial qua- 
drupeds have become aquatic in their habits, etc. He 
also thinks this view to be confirmed by the so-called 
rudimentary structures ; of which he says : " Through- 
out the animal and vegetable kingdoms we constantly 
meet with organs which are dwarfed and useless repre- 
sentatives of organs which, in other and allied kinds of 
animals and plants, are of large size and functional 
utility. * * * How are they to be accounted for? 
Of course the theory of descent with adaptive modifica- 
tion has a delightfully simple answer to supply, viz., 
than when, from changed conditions of life, an organ 
which was previously useful becomes useless, natural 



162 THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 

selection combined with disuse and so-called economy 
of growth will cause it to dwindle till it becomes a 
rudiment." 

The third argument in favor of Darwinism is taken 
from Geology. Mr. Romanes says : " Since the first 
dawn of life in the occurrence of the simplest organisms 
until the meridian splendor of life as now we see it^ 
gradual advance from the general to the special — from 
the low to the high, from the few and simple to the 
many and complex — has been the law of organic 
nature." 

As to the fourth argument Mr. Romanes observes : 
" The argument from Geology is the argument from the 
distribution of species in time. I will, therefore, next 
take the argument from the distribution of species in 
space — that is the present geographical distribution of 
plants and animals. It is easy to see that this must be 
a most important argument, if we reflect that as the 
theory of descent with adaptive modification implies 
slow and gradual change of one species into another, a 
still more slow and gradual change of one genus, 
family, or order, we should expect, on this theory, that 
the organic types living on any given geographical area 
would be found to resemble or to differ from organic 
types living elsewhere, according as the area is connected 
or disconnected with other geographical areas. And 
this we find to be the case, as abundant evidence 
proves." 

A fifth argument, Mr. Romanes takes from Embry- 
ology. He says : " To economize space, I shall not 
explain the considerations which obviously lead to the 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 163 

anticipation that, if the theory of descent by inherit- 
ance is true, the life-history of the individual ought to 
constitute a sort of condensed epitome of the whole 
history of its descent. But taking this anticipation for 
granted, as it is fully realized by the the facts of Em- 
bryology, it follows that the science of Embryology 
affords perhaps the strongest of all the strong argu- 
ments in favor of evolution. * * * The higher 
animals almost invariably pass through the same em- 
bryological stages as the lower ones, up to the time 
when the higher animal begins to assume its higher 
characters. Thus, for instances, to take the case of the 
highest animal * * * (its) development begins 
from a speck of living matter similar to that from 
which the development of a plant begins. And, when 
(its) animality becomes established (it) exhibits the 
fundamental anatomical qualities which characterize 
such lowly animals as the jelly-fish. Next (it) is 
marked off as a vertebrate, but it cannot be said whether 
(it) is to be a fish, a snake, a bird, or a beast. Later on 
it is evident that (it) is to be a mammal ; but not till 
still later can it be said to which order of mammals (it) 
belongs." 

To these principal arguments, Mr. Romanes adds yet 
a few of minor importance. First, he thinks, this theory 
which was devised to explain facts of Biology, furnishes 
also an explanation of phenomena of Psychology. "This 
is especially the case with the phenomena of instinct, 
and in a lesser degree, with those of reason and consci- 
ence." Moreover, he considers it an argument in favor 
of the Darwinian theory, that not all structures and in- 



164 THEORY OF EYOLUTION AND 

stincts of animals are perfect in every way. Finally, 
Mr. Romanes thinks, if "Divine Beneficence," and not 
natural selection, had made the various species what they 
are, not every species would be "for itself, and for itself 
alone" — , but on the contrary, the various species would 
have been so interrelated as to minister to each other's 
necessities. 

It is to be observed that these three minor arguments 
in favor of Darwinism are not based on scientific 
facts, but are merely deductions from Mr. Romanes' 
speculative views, which are of no more value than those 
of any other speculative person. Now, millions of in- 
telligent persons may, and do differ with Mr. Romanes, 
on these points. Yet, it is not our object to deal in 
philosophical speculations, but to compare the results of 
Modern Science wjiih the Doctrines of Christianity. 

Passing, then, over these points of minor importance, 
let us briefly see what the opponents of Darwin's theory 
reply. — To the principal arguments from Classification, 
Morphology, and Embryology may be replied, that the 
facts on which these arguments are based, may be ex- 
plained, just as easily as on Darwin's theory, on the as- 
sumption that God created, according to a few "dominant 
typical ideas," a vast series of organic, living species, 
gradually filling up the immense chasm between the 
lowest forms of visible existence — lifeless matter, and 
man. This assumption would explain in a perfectly 
satisfactory manner, why the numberless species are 
united by a common bond, not of descent, but of "general 
plans," or "dominant typical ideas." — Dr. Carl Guettler^ 

7. Naturf orschung- und Bibel, p. 165. 



II 



CHEISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 165 

observes ; "The general idea of likeness or similarity of 
appearance (Formen) is to be well disguished from 
genetic relationship (descent)." 

Prof. Winchell ^ regards certain rudimentary structures 
as "premeditated intimations of the dominance of general 
plans." He calls attention to the fact, that there are many 
instances "in which the existence of organs in a rudi- 
mentary condition is historically antecedent to their 
existence in a fully developed condition." Thus, for in- 
stance, rudimentary lungs are found with tad-poles and 
various batrachians, as also with the gar-pike — a type of 
fish which existed an immense period of time before 
any air-breathing animal could live. Hence Prof. Win- 
chell concludes : "On the hypothesis of an overshadow- 
ing plan of organic structure, framed by intelligence, 
carried into execution under the guidance of intelligence, 
behold how beautiful and how gratifying an explanation 
of all these rudimentary structures." 

From this we see that the facts on which Mr. Romanes 
bases his arguments from Morphology, Classification, 
and Embryology, may, as least as easily as on the Dar- 
winian hypothesis, be explained on the assumption that 
God created the various original species after a few 
"dominant typical ideas" according to a certain plan of 
succession. — Thus several of Mr. Romanes' arguments 
in favor of the Darwinian hypothesis lose their conclu- 
siveness. 

Let us next see what the opponents of Darwin's theory 
reply to Mr. Romanes' argument from Geology. It is 

8. The Doctrine of Evolution, pp. 85-T. 



166 THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 

true that, from the first dawn of life up to the last geo- 
logical epoch, a gradual advance from less perfect to 
more perfect species of plants and animals can be traced. 
Yet, this only proves that more perfect species succeeded 
gradually, as the Earth became a fit abode for them, less 
perfect ones, but not, that the more perfect species have 
been gradually developed from the less perfect, as Dar- 
win's theory would postulate. 

One great stubborn truth stands in the way of the 
theory of organic evolution, — that notwithstanding vari- 
ations, " we are ignorant of a single instance of the deri- 
vation of One good sj^ecies from another," although our 
globe has been ransacked to find such an instance. No 
doubt, species may vary under certain conditions ; but, 
as far as observation shows, "the divergent form, when 
relieved of physical constraint, rapidly reverts to its 
original type." 

Dr. Carl Guettler® calls attention to the following 
facts : Numerous mummied specimens of oxen, cats, 
dogs, monkeys, crocodiles, and birds, from 3 to 4000 
years old, have been discovered in Egypt. Yet, between 
these and the same still living species of animals not 
the slightest specific difference can be found. Some 
grains of wheat discovered with those ancient mummies 
were sown, and produced a variety of wheat exactly like 
one yet grown in Egypt. According to Agassiz, the 
formation of the coral-reefs of Florida lasted at least 
70,000 years, and during that immense period of time 
the building polyps always remained specifically the 
same. The same is true of the conchylious mollusks of 

9. Naturforschung und Bibel, p. 157—166. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPAEED. 167 

the oecene, miocene, and pliocene tertiary period, which 
■continue to exist yet to-day specifically the same as many 
thousands of years ago. The same is true of the various 
kinds of mollusks that have continued to exist unchanged 
since the remote Silurian Ages. The gar-pike, a type of 
fish which existed long before any air-breathed animal, 
is to-day yet just as its ancestors were countless thou- 
sands of years ago. — Numerous other instances of the 
persistence of specific types are mentioned by paleonto- 
logists. 

If Darwin's theory were true, numerous fossil forms 
of transition from one sj^ecies to another would have to 
be found in the geological strata ; but this is not the 
case. Wherever new fossil species appear, they do so 
quite abruptly. 

To get over this difiiculty, Darwin takes refuge to 
•our limited knowledge of the various fossil species that 
may have existed without our knowing. 

Dr. Guettler ^^ replies : "In fact, this our ignorance 
(as to extinct fossil species) is by far not so great, as 
Darwin represents. We are acquainted with about 
150,000 different species of fossil animals from the 
most different countries ; and of many species, 
thousands of fossil specimens are extant. If, then, 
really new specific forms had come into existence by 
gradual transition or change from pre-existing species, 
■* * * some such forms of transition would necessarily 
bave been preserved. * * * That just all the forms of 



10. L. c, p. 159-60. 



168 THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND 

transition should have been destroyed by geological 
processes, is an assumption, the immense improbability 
of which is evident." 

Now, if these facts from Geology and Paleontology 
prove anything, it is not in favor of the Darwinian 
theory, but directly destructive to it. These facts show 
that, so far as exact scjjentific researches reach back into 
past geological ages, organic species have, as long as 
they existed, always retained their specific identity. 

There is yet one of the arguments which Mr. 
Romanes considers favorable to Darwin's theory,, 
namely, the argument from geographical distribution. 
It is claimed, that the organic types living on any given 
geographical area are found to resemble or differ from 
organic types living elsewhere, in proportion as the area 
is connected or disconnected with the other geograph- 
ical areas. The opponents of the Darwinian theory 
reply to this argument : All the facts on which it is. 
based, may be satisfactorily explained on the assump- 
tion that various centres of creation existed, — where 
certain species appeared first. Now, from these centres; 
the distribution of the various species through adjacent 
territories took place, in proportion to the greater or 
lesser facility with which the various species could 
migrate or be carried to other geographical areas. Thisi 
explains why many organic types resemble another the 
more, as their geographical areas are more connected.. 

We have thus far seen, what arguments are ad- 
vanced in favor of the Darwinian theory, and how the 
opponents of this theory reply to these arguments. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 169 

After impartially examining the arguments of both 
sides, the conclusion seems to be inevitable, that although 
the Darwinian theory may, and probably does, contain 
some valuable grains of truth, — yet, as commonly under- 
stood, it is far from being a well-founded theory ; is it 
no more than a bold hypothesis. 

Moreover, if some infidels talk or write, as if Darwin's 
theory had made the Creator superfluous, they only show 
their lack of reflection. Darwin himself knew better. 
Prof. Asa Gray who favors this theory, " declares : "In- 
deed, mediate creation is just what the thoughtful and 
thorough observer of the ways of God in Nature would 
expect, and what some of the illustrious of the philoso- 
phic saints and fathers of the Church have more or less 
believed in." This highly esteemed American scientist 
observes moreover : "Darwinism has real causes at its 
foundation, viz : the fact of variation, of the inevitable 
operation of natural selection, determining the survival 
only of the fittest forms for time and place. It is there- 
fore a good hypothesis, so far. But is it a sufficient and 
a complete hypothesis ?" Prof. Gray thinks not ; for 
"natural selection" does not explain why lower forms 
should rise to higher ones ; why simple ones should be- 
come complex ; why protoplasm should change into a 
plant or animal ; why a lower animal should become a 
more perfect one. "Natural Selection" cannot explain 
the origin of sensitiveness, consciousness, or intellect ; it 
does not account for the origin or formation of any or- 
gan, as of the eye, brain, hand, etc. 

11. Natural Science and Religion, 



170 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

Hence infidels wlio imagine that Darwin's theory has 
made the Creator superfluous, are greatly mistaken. 

From what has been said on Darwinism, we may draw 
the following conclusions: 1. Darwinism, within certain 
limits, does not contradict the divinely revealed Mosaic 
Account of the creation. 2. Darwinism is far from 
being an undoubtedly true theory. As Mr. Asa Gray 
observes : " From the nature of the case this conception 
can never be demonstrated ;" for all facts on which the 
arguments in favor of Darwinism, or the theory of the 
evolution of organic species, are based, can be explained 
also on the assumption that the various species were, 
according to comparatively few dominant plans, created 
successively. 

Having reviewed the pro and contra of the famous hy- 
pothesis of the evolution of species in general, we will 
examine its application to man, the crown of the 
visible creation. 



Vni. MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN. 

1. man's place and object in natuee. 

ny/TR. THOMAS H. HUXLEY observes i^ "The 
question of questions for mankind — the problem 
which underlies all others, and is more deeply interest- 
ing than any other — is the ascertainment of the place 
which Man occupies in nature, and of his relations to 
the universe of thino's. Whence our race has come ; 



]. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. 



CHEISTIAJf DOCTBIXES COMPAEED. l7l 

what are the limits of our power over nature, and of 
nature's power over us ; to what goal we are tending; 
— are the problems which present themselves anew and 
with undiminished interests to every man born into the 
world." 

God, who has created man, did not leave him in dark- 
ness as to his origin, his place in nature, and his final 
destiny. We read in the first book of the Bible : 
" God created man to his own image ^ ^ ^ : male 
and female, he created them. And God blessed them, 
saying : Increase and multiply, and fill the Earth and 
subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the 
fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon 
the Earth. * * * Behold, I have given you every 
herb * * * and all trees, etc." Thus man was 
made by God lord over all upon Earth ; he was to be 
the crown of the visible creation ; — in him the visible, 
or material, and the spiritual worlds were united. As 
his body was taken from the Earth, so his soul was a 
breath, a spiritual image, of the Creator, — similar to 
purely spiritual beings called angels. The Psalmist 
8, 4, 6, in the following words, briefly describes 
man's place in nature : " I will behold (O God) thy 
heavens, the works of thy fingers : the moon and the 
stars which thou hast founded. What is man, that thou 
art mindful of him ? Or the son of man, that thou 
visiteth him ? Thou hast made him a little less than 
the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor : 
and hast set him over the works of thy hands." 

Man, then, is placed between two worlds — the visible 
and the invisible. From the visible creation, he should 



172 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

rise with the wings of his spiritual faculties to the 
higher, invisible world, — to God Himself. Therefore 
Divine Revelation teaches : " The invisible things of 
Him (God), from the creation of the world, are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made : 
His eternal power also and divinity." Romans 1, 20. 
And again the book of Wisdom teaches : " All men 
are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God ; 
and who by these things that are seen, could not under- 
stand Him, that is, neither by attending to the works 
have acknowledged who was the workman ; but hav& 
imagined either the fire * * * or the circle of stars 
or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world 
* * * Let them know, how much the Lord of them is 
more beautiful than they : for the First Author of beauty 
made all those things. Or, if they admired their power 
and their effects, let them understand by them, that He 
that made them, is mightier than they : for by the great- 
ness of the beauty, and of the creature, the Creator of 
them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." 

Thus Divine Revelation teaches that all the visible 
universe is but a school in which man should learn to 
know his Creator ; yet, not only — to know, but also — to 
love, and love Him above all things. The pious author 
of the Following of Christ, Book II, Chapt. 4, remarks : 
"If only thy heart were right, then every created being 
would be to thee a mirror of life and a book of holy 
teaching. There is no creature so little and so contemp- 
tible, that it sheweth not forth the goodness of God." 

The visible creation, then, is to lead mem to God, his 
Creator and the source of his eternal happiness. This 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 1*73 

is the reason why nothing created can satisfy the heart 
of man. Solomon, after attaining the summit of earthly 
glory and pleasures, felt compelled to confess : "I made 
me great works : I built me great houses, and planted 
yineyards : I made gardens and orchards, and set them 
with trees of all kinds * * * I heaped together for my- 
self silyer and gold, and the wealth of kings and proyin- 
ces : I made me singing men, and singing women, and 
the delights of the sons of men, cups and yessels to seiwe 
to pour out wine ; and I surpassed in riches all that were 
hefore me in Jerusalem : my wisdom also remained with 
me. And I withheld not my heart from enjoying eyery 
pleasure * * * and when I turned myself to all the 
works which my hands had wrought * * * I saw in all 
things yanity, and yexation of mind, and that nothing 
was lasting under the sun." Eccl. 2, 4-11. 

This, at the end, eyery one will haye to confess, who 
has sought true and full happiness in anything created. 
The author of "Is Life Worth Liying ?" truly obseryes: 
"The emptiness of things of this life, the incompleteness 
of eyen its highest pleasures, and their utter powerless- 
ness to make us really happy, has been * * * ^ common 
place both with saints and sages." 

Man is greater than the yisible creation around him ; 
he has been created for God ; hence finite creatures can- 
not satisfy him. — The yisible creation should be to him. 
but a ladder on which he is not to rest, but to ascend to 
God, the Author of his eternal repose. Therefore St. 
Augustine exclaimed: "Fecisti nos ad Te, Domine! et in- 
quietum est cor nostrum, donee requiescet in Te ! " — 



1*74 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

" Thou hast created us for Thee, O Lord ! and our heart 
is unquiet, until it will rest in Thee !" 

This, then, is what Christian Doctrine teaches as to 
Man's Place and Object in Nature. 

Now, what has Modern Science to say on this point ? 
Nothing, — absolutely nothing ! — for such questions, on 
which God's Revelation alone can give full certainty, 
lie beyond the reach of scientific investigations ; neither 
the telescope, nor the microscope, nor chemical analysis, 
is here of any avail. 

Let us turn our attention to another subject. 

2. THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

It is well known what Divine Revelation teaches on 
this point. We read in the Book of Genesis, that, the 
Earth having been adorned with plants and animals of 
all kinds, God crowned the visible creation by making 
man according to His Divine image and likeness. "The 
Lord God formed man of the slime of the Earth : and 
breathed into his face the breath of life, and man be- 
came a living soul." Genesis 2, 7. 

Some modern scientists, as Darwin, Haeckel, Huxley, 
etc., maintain that man was not created by God, but gra- 
dually developed from some lower animal species to 
which also the higher apes owe their descent. The infi- 
del naturalist Haeckel has published what he imagined to 
be a complete genealogical tree showing Man's animal 
origin. 

What are we to think of it ? Mr. Samuel Wainwright ^ 
hits the nail on the head with the following words : 
1. Scientific Sophisms. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 1*75 

"The theory of man's ape-descent thus constructed is 
perfect — but it is in the air. It lacks but one thing to 
give it relevance ; and that one thing is reality. Like 
the "chateaux en Espagne" of the penniless count, it 
exists only in the interested imagination of the pretender. 
Du Bois Reymond has incurred the bitter and unappeas- 
able wrath of Haeckel by declaring this genealogical 
tree (Stammbaum) to be as authentic in the eyes of a 
naturalist, as are the (fabulous) pedigrees of the Homeric 
heroes in those of an historian." 

Indeed, all talk about man's ape-descent has no other 
foundation than the gratuitous assumption of the truth 
of the Darwinian theory — carried to the utmost ex- 
tremes. 

On what doubtful foundations the whole Darwinian 
hypothesis is based, we have shown in a previous article; 
we shall now confine ourselves to showing briefly, how 
unfounded the application of this theory is to the origin 
of man. 

Let us examine the arguments advanced by Mr, 
Thomas H. Huxley^ in favor of the hypothesis of the 
development of man from the lower animals. 

Mr. Huxley says : " It is a truth of very wide, if not 
of universal, application, that every living creature 
commences its existence under a form different from 
and simpler than that which it eventually attains. The 
oak is a more complex thing than the little rudimentary 
plant contained in the acorn ; the caterpillar is more 
complex than the egg ; the butterfly than the caterpil- 

3. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. 



176 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

lar ; and eacii of these things, in passing from its rudi- 
mentary to its perfect condition, runs through a series 
of changes, the sum of which is called its develop- 
ment. In the higher animals these changes are ex- 
tremely complicated ; but Avithin the last half -century 
the labors of such men as Von Baer, Rathke, Reickert 
Bishof, and Remak have almost completely unraveled 
them. * * * * It is a general law that the more 
closely any animals resemble one another in adult 
structure, the larger and the more intimately do their 
embryos resemble one another. * * * Thus, the 
study of development affords a clear test of the close- 
ness of structural affinity, and one turns with impa- 
tience to inquire what results are yielded by the study 
of the development of man. Is he something apart ? 
* * Or does he originate in a similar germ, pass 
through the same slow and gradually progressive mod- 
ifications (as lower animals) p * * * Without ques- 
tion, the mode of origin and early stages of the devel- 
opment of man are identical with those of the animals 
immediately below him in the scale." 

In addition to what has been stated in a preceding 
article as to the bearing of Embryology on the hypothe- 
sis of evolution, we quote the following words of the 
famous scientist Father Angelo Sechi, S. J., ^ in reply 
to these remarks of Mr. Huxley. "It has been attempted 
to compute the number of oxygen-and hydrogen- 
atoms necessary for the formation of xoVo of a cubic inch 
of water, and their number is estimated at about 



3. "Die Groesse dei' Scboepfung-," translated from the Italian. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. llj 

3,900,000,000,000,000 — three thousand and nine hundred 
billions. Yet water is one of the least composed bodies 
* * * From this we draw an evident conclusion: namely, 
we brand those impertinent and ignorant naturalists 
who, to uphold their assumption of the transmutation 
of species, claim that the original germs (Urzellen) out 
of which the living organisms develop themselves — are 
all the same, and who insist upon the fact that their 
(microscopic) instruments show no difference. The fools! 
they do not comprehend that the two original germs 
of which one produces, for instance, a bird, and the other, 
a fish, can and must be in the arrangement of their en- 
trinsic parts just as different from each other, as are also 
the grown and fully developed animals. With even 
the strongest instruments, these original germs will al- 
ways appear as small points, just as an elephant and a 
horse would appear to one who, from a plain, would see 
them on some distant mountain, as moving and hardly 
distinguishable points." 

We therefore reply to Mr. Huxley's first argument, 
that he is greatly mistaken if he imagines that man 
originates " in a similar germ," like the lower animals. 
This germ is as different, and, since cause and effect must 
necessarily correspond, must be as different from the 
germ of any brute, as man is different from brutes. If 
Mr. Huxley does not see that difference, it by no means 
follows that the difference does not exist. 

The next argument in favor of man's development 
from some lower animals, is taken from the similarities of 
bodily organization, or structure, found to exist between 
man and some animals. '• Whatever part of the animal 



1V8 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

fabric," Mr. Huxley says, " — whatever series of mus- 
cles, whatever viscera might be selected for comparison, 
— the result would be the same, — the lower apes and the 
gorrilla would differ more than the gorrilla and the man." 

That there exists a great similarity of bodily struc- 
ture between man and some animals, was known for 
thousands of years before Huxley or any other modern 
naturalist called attention to that fact. It was well 
known to the earliest Christian teachers, that man, 
according to his body, belongs to the animal kingdom ; 
— but, according to his spiritual, rational soul, • he be- 
longs to the higher, the spiritual world. Therefore 
man, as was shown in a previous article, is as distinct 
from the animal kingdom, as animals are from plants. 

Moreover, as Dr. Albert Stoeckl * observes : " If the 
bodily structure of man shows any similarity to the 
bodily structure of an ape, does it therefore follow 
that man has descended from an ape ? By no means. 
Only then such a conclusion could be drawn, if by other 
empiric facts it could be proved that man could have 
received such a body only by having descended from an 
ape. But such facts do not exist." 

The bodily similarity between man and the most per- 
fect animals, is easily accounted for on the Christian 
doctrine of man's place in nature. — Man was to be the 
centre in which the lower, material, and the higher, 
spiritual world were to meet ; man was to be the con- 
necting links between these two worlds. Therefore, as 
according to his rational soul he was created similar to 



4. Der Materialismus, p. 65. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 1*79 

the. angels immediately above him in the scale of 
■created perfection, so also, according to his body, he 
was created by God similar to the animals, immediately 
l^elow him. 

And now, let Mr. Huxley and other naturalists exert 
:all their wits, to show the similarity of bodily structure 
between man and the more perfect animals ; they 
•can never refute the Christian doctrine of man's place 
in nature. 

St. George Mivart,^ after describing minutely the 
anatomical structures of apes and man, remarks : " To 
return from this subordinate question, it may be asked, 
•' What is the bearing of all the foregoing facts on the 
origin and affinities of man ? ' " He answers : " In 
nature there is nothino^ orreat but man. In man there is 
nothing great but mind. We must entirely dismiss, 
then, the conception that anatomy by itself can have 
any decisive bearing on the question as to man's nature 
and being as a whole." 

But what does Geology, or rather Paleontology, teach 
on the subject of man's descent ? Mr. Huxley, towards 
the end of his publication on Man's Place in IsTature, 
after examining the cases of the Engis and Neander- 
thal skulls, frankly admits : " In conclusion, I may say 
that the fossil remains of man hitherto discovered do 
not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that 
lower pithecoid (ape-like) form, by the modification of 
w^hich he (man) has, probably, become what he is." 
With these words, Mr. Huxley admits that there exists 



5. Man and Apes, p. 187-8. 



180 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

no proof whatever from Geology, that there ever 
existed, what is called the missing link between man 
and ape-like animals. 

This fact is candidly admitted by the leading" 
champions of man's animal descent. Mr. Haeckel's ^ 
prolific imagination has even invented a plausible reason 
to explain why the " missing link " has not yet been 
found, and why it will, probably, not be found for a 
long time to come. He asserts quite coolly : " There- 
exist a number of indications which point to the fact 
that the original home (Urheimath) of man was a con- 
tinent now sunk beneath the surface of the Indian 
Ocean." 

What a pity for Haeckel & Co., that they will have- 
to wait for the discovery of the " missing link," until 
it will please that continent to peep again out of the 
Indian Ocean ! 

Yet, whatever may happen in the future, Mr. Haeckel 
is candid enough to admit ^ for the present : "Of the hy- 
pothetical original man (Homo primigenius !), who 
* * * developed himself during the Tertiary period from 
anthropoid apes, we are as yet acquainted with no fossil 
remains." — Mr. Haeckel, then, admits that there exists no- 
tangible proof that such an original ( !) man ever existed. 

Mr. Darwin * also admits that there exists — "the great 
break in the organic chain between man and his nearest 
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or 
living species (known)." He adds : "Nor should it be 



6. Natuerliche Schoepfung-sg-eschichte, 4th Edition, p, 619. 

7. L. C, p. 620.— 

8. The Descent of Man. Part. I, Chapt. VI. 



CHRISTIAN^ DOCTRINES COMPARED. 181 

forgotten that those regions which are the most likely 
to afford remains connecting man with some extinct 
ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched by geo- 
logists." Hereby Mr. Darwin also candidly admits that 
up to the present time the missing link between man 
and some ape-like creatures has not yet been found — 
■outside of some prolific imaginations. — But, perhaps, 
some future, yet unborn geologist may find it I — Such as 
liave patience, are kindly requested to wait for this dis- 
covery ! ! 

From all what has been said on the subject, the reader 
will see that the so-called descent of man from some 
ape-like creature, is only a mere assumption — without 
any solid facts in its favor, — and with serious objections 
against it. 

Among others, Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, ^ a promi- 
nent naturalist and champion of the Darwinian theory, 
has shown that there exist important "limits of Natural 
Selection as applied to man." Mr. Wallace is of the 
opinion that Darwinism can explain no more "the de- 
velopment of man from lower animals," than it can ex- 
plain "the origin of sensation or consciousness." 

It would be an easy matter to quote many similar 
statements made by prominent naturalists ; yet, to avoid 
tiring the reader, we will add only the following words 
of the famous French naturalist A. De Quaterfages: ^'^ 
■*'As for us, gentlemen, we do not pretend to be either 
theologians or philosophers. We are exclusively men 



9. The Action on Natural Selection on Man. 

10. The Natural History of Man, New York, 18T5, p. 87. 



182 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

of science ; we have, then, to disturb us, only the truths 
of science. It is in the name of these truths that I have 
had to recognize the weakness of science, to say: Whence 
comes man ? But, in the name of scientific truth, I can 
affirm that we have had for ancestor neither a gorilla, 
nor an orang-outang, nor a chimpanzee ; no more than a 
seal or a fish, or any other animal whatever." 

Modern Science, then, has no well-founded fact to ad- 
vance against the doctrine of Divine Revelation, that 
"God created man to his own image ;" that "the Lord 
God formed man of the slime of the Earth : and breathed 
into his face the breath of life." Gen. I. & II. 

Here we may be permitted to call attention to some 
purely speculative questions suggested by the scientists 
Mivart and Asa Gray — in reference to the origin of 
man's body — and man's immortal soul. 

Prof. Mivart, a Catholic scientist of England, as Dr. 
Schaefer" states, has expressed the opinion that it 
would not be inconsistent with any clearly established 
doctrine of Divine Revelation, to maintain that the body 
of the first man was gradually perfected by evolution,, 
or development, from some lower animal species, — and 
that after this body had reached the perfection contem- 
plated by the Creator, it was endowed by Him with the 
spiritual and immortal soul. Also in this case, the body 
of man could be said to have been taken from "the 
Earth," though not directly but mediately. 

What are we to think of this opinion ? In the first 
place, it is a purely speculative matter, not a question 



11. Bibel und Wissenschaft, Muenster, 1881, pp. 277-8. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 183 

concevning results of scientific researches. Secondly, 
Prof. Mivart's opinion has not been censured by the 
proper ecclesiastical authorities, although some theolo- 
gians consider it inconsistent with the Mosaic account 
of the creation of man. Thirdly, if Dr. Carl Guettler^^ 
is not mistaken, it would seem that even the great 
teacher St. Augustine did consider this opinion as in har- 
mony with Christian Doctrines. Dr. Guettler, after re- 
ferring to several works of the great teacher, observes : 
"Indem Augustinus auch den koerperlichen Menschen 
i)ivisibiliter, potentialUer, causaliter mit der Materia sich 
erschaffen denkt und ihn als ein Entwicklungsproduct 
hinstellt, pflichtet er in Princip einer teleologisch inter- 
pretirten Pithekoidentheorie bei." 

After carefully considering both sides of the question, 
I for one would not venture to declare Prof. Mivart's 
opinion inconsistent with any Christian Doctrine, al- 
though great theological authorities ^^ clecidedly reject 
the same. 

Another novel opinion, as to the origin of man's 
immortal soul, has been advanced by Prof. Asa Gray. ^* 
In order that this eminent scientist may not be misun- 
derstood on this point, I call special attention to the fol- 
lowing statements : Prof. Gray expressly declares : 1. 
"When the naturalist is asked, what and whence the origin 
of maU; he can only answer in the words of Quaterfages 
and Yirchow, ' We do not know at all.' We have traces 

12. Naturforschung- und Bibel, Freiburg-, 1877, p. 145. 

13. See H. Hurter S. J. : Theologiae Dogmatieae Compendium, vol. II 
1878, p. 180. 

14. Natural Science and Religion, New York, 1880, pp. 100-6. 



184 MODERN SCIENTIFIC yiE>\'8 ON MAN AND 

of his existence up to and even anterior to the latest 
marked climatic change in our temperate zone : but he 
was then perfected man ; and no vestige of an earlier 
form was known. The believer in direct or special crea- 
tion is entitled to the advantage which this negative 
evidence gives." 2. "Sober evolutionists do not sup- 
pose that man descended from monkeys. The stream (of 
descent) must have branched too early for that." 3. Prof. 
Gray admits the great superiority of man over animals. 
He says : "A being who has the faculty — however be - 
stowed — of reflective, abstract thought superadded to all 
lower psychical faculties, is thereby per saltum immeas- 
urably exalted * * * None of us have any scientific or 
philosophical explanation to offer as to how it came to 
be added to what we share with the brutes that perish ; 
but it puts man into another world than theirs, both 
here, and — with the aid of some evolutionary ideas, we 
may add — hereafter." Now comes the main pointy namely ' 
how Prof. Gray, according to the theory of evolution, 
wishes to explain the origin of rnmi's immortal soul. He 
says : " Now see how evolution may help you; in its con- 
ception that, while all the lower serves its purpose for the 
time being, and is a stage toward better and higher, the 
lower sooner or later perish, the higher, the consummate, 
survive. The soul in its bodily tenement is the final 
outcome of Nature. May it not well be that the perfec- 
ted soul alone survives the final struggle of life, and in- 
deed 'then chiefly lives,' because in it all worths and 
ends in here ; because it only is worth immortality, be- 
cause it alone carries in itself the promise and potentia- 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 185 

lity of eternal life ! Certainly in it only is the potentia- 
lity of religion, or that which aspires to immortality." 

This hypothesis would seem both ingenious and con- 
sistent with Christian Doctrines, — if we could assume, 
^s some early Christian teachers did, among them Tertul- 
lian,^^ that " as the body is born of the body, so the sOul is 
born of the soul." But for theological and philosophical 
reasons, which it is not our object at present to explain, 
this opinion of Tertullian and others has been rejected 
by all prominent modern Catholic theologians, who 
teach that the human souls, being spiritual, immortal 
substances, cannot be propagated by generation, or be 
the result of a process of organic evolution, but must 
T^e called into existence by direct creative acts of God. 

Modern Science has no proved fact, to show the 
contrary. Prof. Gray ^^ observes : "Increments of force 
by Divine action in time, * * * jf such there be, 
could never in the least be known to science." In a 
similar manner we say, The creation of human 
•souls by direct Divine action in time, as taught by 
'Catholic theologians, is beyond the reach of human 
•observation, and can hence never in the least be known 
to science. 

3. ANTIQUITY OF MANKIND. 

Mr. Huxley ^ observes : " If any form of the doctrine 
•of progressive development is correct, we must extend 
>)y long epochs the most liberal estimate that has yet 
been made of the antiquity of man." 

15. H. Hurter, S. J., in the work mentioned before, p. 343. 

16. Natural Science and Religion, p. 96. 
1. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. 



186 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

Some infidel scientists entirely overlook Mr. Huxley's 
" If " — and talk of an enormous antiquity of mankind, 
as of a matter of fact. Mr. Kathan Allen ^ says of 
some scientists : " If these authorities are right, then 
at a period earlier than 200,000 years since, Europe was 
peopled by palaeolithic men." 

Yes — " if these auto ri ties are right," then, etc. But 
just this will appear very improbable to any one who 
carefully examines the foundations on which the 
assertions of an enormous antiquity of mankind are 
based. 

It will not do to say, it mnst have taken countless 
thousands of years, before man could have become so 
perfectly developed, as he is. For, as was shown 
before, there is no proof extant, that man ever was 
"developed," as Haeckel & Co. dream. 

Let us see on what foundations an estimate as to the 
antiquity of mankind can be based : 

1 . What does reliable history teach in reference to 
the antiquity of man ? How many thousands of years 
before Christ do reliable histories of nations reach back 
into antiquity ? 

Every student of history knows that the reliable 
history of the ancient Romans reaches no further back 
into antiquity than at most V50, of the ancient Greeks, 
hardly 1000 years before Christ. 

As to the antiquity of other nations, the learned Eng- 
lish historian Prof. George Rawlinson, of Oxford, ob_ 
serves : ^ "Cuneiform (inscriptions) scholars confidently 

3. The Popular Scieaee Monthly, November, 1883, p. 97. 
3. The Origin of Nations. Chapt. IX. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMrARED. 187 

place the beginnings of Babylon about B. C. 2300, of 
Assyria, about B. C. 1500. The best Aryan scholars place 
the dawn of Iranic civilization about B. C. 1500, of Indie 
about B. C. 1200. Chinese investigators can find nothing 
solid or substantial in the past of the "Celestials" earlier 
than B. C. 781, or at the furthest B. C. 1154. For 
Phoenicia the date assigned by the latest English investi- 
gator is "the sixteenth or seventeenth century before 
Christ." The researches of Dr. Schlieman in the Troad 
give indications of the existence of a low type of civili- 
zation in that region, which may reach back to about 
B. C. 2000. In the rest of Asia Minor we have no 
certain knowledo-e of anv civilization that has a s^reater 
antiquity than about B. C. 900. In Europe, the simple 
and incipient civilization delineated by Homer must 
have commenced as early as the Trojan epoch, which 
is probably about B. C. 1300—1200. No other European 
civilization can compete with this, the Etruscan not 
reaching back further than about B. C. 650 or 700, and 
the Celtic, such as it was, being really subsequent to the 
occupation of England by the Romans. A consensufi of 
savants and acJiolars almost luiparaleMed limits the past 
history of civilized man to a date removed from our 
own time by less than 4400 years, e.>'cept!ng in a single 
instance.'''' And the single instance referred to is Egypt, 
with respect to whose antiquity savants are at variance, 
because the chronological data concerning the ancient his- 
tory of Egypt are a mass of confused statements, so that 
one often cannot distinguish between what has happened 
contemporaneously, and what has happened successively. 
Mr. Mariette, quoted by Mr. Rawlinson, remarks : "The 



188 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS OX MAN AND 

greatest obstacle to establish a regular Egyptian chro- 
nology is the circumstance that the Egyptians themselves 
?ieve7^ heed any chronology at all.'''* 

We, therefore, need not be surpiised that some placed 
the reign of Menes, who is considered to have been the 
first king of Egypt, at as remote a date as about B. C. 
-5000. — But others are in favor of a by far later date. 

Mr. Rawlinson states'' that the following authorities 
gave these dates as the time of Menes' reign : Dr. 

Brugsch, Director of the Museum of Antiquities in 
Berlin, 4400 B. C. ; Dr. Lepsius, 3892 B. C. ; Baron 
Bunsen, 3059 B. C. ; Reginald Stuart Poole, 2717 B. C; 
Sir Gardner Wilkinson, "who," as Mr. Rawlinson ob- 
serves, "on the whole, must be regarded as the greatest 
of English Egyptologers," considers as the proximate 
date of the accession of Menes — the year B. C. 2691. 

Mr. Rawlinson himself considers about B. C. 2450 as 
the time of the establishment of a settled monarchy, and 
with it, of civilization in Eg^-pt. "This view," he ob- 
serves, "appears to us to be more in accordance than any 
other with the general facts of oriental history and 
chronology. Its compatibility with the chronology of 
the Bible will be evident, if it be born in mind that, 
according to the Septuagint version, the date of the 
Deluge was certainly anterior to B. C. 3000." 

From all this 'we see that the reliable results of histori- 

<ial investigations concerning the most ancient history of 

manMnd perfectly agree vy'ith what the inspired TTritten 

Wb7'd of God, the JBible, relates itp to the time of the 

Deluge. 

4. The Origin with Nations. Chapt. II. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 189' 

Let US next see what Modern Science can tell us of 
the history mankind before the time of the Deluge 
(about B. C. 8000). 

Mr. Ingersoll says^: "We know, if we know anything, 
that men lived in Europe Avith the hairy mammoth, the 
cave-bear, the rhinoceros, and the hyena. Among the 
bones of these animals have been found the stone hat- 
chets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the caves^ 
where they lived have been discovered the remains of 
these animals that have been conquered, killed and de- 
voured as food, hundreds of thousands of years ago. If 
these facts are true, Moses was mistaken." 

Exactly so, Mr. Ingersoll, " If." But how does Mr. 
Ingersoll know, that men, no less than "hundreds of - 
thousands of years ago," have killed animals ? To him 
and a few scientists this fact seems to be evident^ 
because men lived with the hairy mammoth, the cave- 
bear, etc. Among the bones of these animals, stone 
hatchets and flint arrows have been found ; and, there- 
fore, man must have lived "hundreds of thousands of 
years ago !" — And such palpable nonsense — that great 
light of American unbelief is not ashamed to publish. 

Since such silly assertions as to the antiquity of man- 
kind are often made, it may not be out of place to exa- 
mine briefly their supposed foundations. If any reader 
wishes to study moj*e on this subject, we advise him to 
read "The Recent Origin of Man, as Illustrated by 
Geology and the Modern Science of Prehistoric Archaeo- 
logy. By James C. Southall, 606 Pages. Published : 
Philadelphia. By J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1875." In this^ 
5. Some Mistakes of Moses, p. 100. 



190 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

work the reader will find about all facts worth mention- 
ing bearing on this question. 

That man was coeval in Europe with some now there 
<3xtinct animals (as, for instance, two species of elephants, 
two species of rhinoceros, one species of hippopotamos, 
the cave-bear, cave-lion, and cave-hyena, and some other 
animals) is, as Dr. Guettler*^ declares, now generally 
admitted. 

Yet, that is no proof for an enormous antiquity of man- 
kind, as Mr. Ingersoll and others seem to imagine. As Dr. 
Ouettler remarks, ^ these animals may have existed for 
thousands of years before man's creation ; but the last 
ages of their existence may have been coeval with the 
appearance of man, to whom the destruction of many of 
these animal species may be ascribed. No sound reasons 
can be assigned, why these now extinct species of animals 
may not have yet existed and been hunted by men in the 
interior of Europe at the time when the Phoenicians 
traversed the Mediterranean Sea in every direction, 
when the Greeks besieged Troy, or Moses led the 
Israelites through the desert. The gradual disappearance 
of certain species of animals in some countries, within the 
strictly historic times, is nothing new. 

It is well known how rapidly some animals are disap- 
pearing in the United States ; as the buffalo, the bear, 
the wolf, the elk (which still existed 1832 in Wisconsin) 
the antelope, the wild turkey, the otter, the beaver, the 
moose, the bison, etc. Even at the time of Aristotle and 
Herodot, the lion existed yet in Greece and Macedonia. 

6. Naturforschuug- und Bibel, p. 360. 

7. L. C, p. 265. 



CHEISTIAX DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 191 , 

The moa and the dodo disappeared in modern times. 
The elephant and rhinoceros are fast disappearing in 
India. The brown bear still existed in Belgium in the 
Middle Ages. The urns existed in Germany even as 
late as the Middle Ages ; nevertheless, its remains are 
also found in the famous "bone-caverns." The same may 
be said of the aurochs, etc. 

If, therefore, now and then, some traces of human re- 
mains are discovered mixed up with the bones of now 
extinct species of animals, there is yet no conclusive 
reason for assuming that man must have liA^ed many 
countless thousands of years ago. There is no evidence 
whatever to show that any of those animals must have 
lived with man more than two thousand years before 
Christ. 

Another unfounded assumption it is, because in some 
•countries utensils or instruments of stone, bronze, and 
iron, have been found, that the history of mankind in 
_general is to be divided into three corresponding epochs 
— each of them of an enormous duration. Whilst the 
Oreeks and Romans were using iron weapons, numerous 
inhabitants of northern and central Europe still re- 
mained satisfied wdth weapons of stone, horn, or wood. 
Some uncivilized tribes, as many of our Indians, 
continued, even up to our o.wn century, to live in the 
so-called " stone-age," — of which some dream that it 
must have been many thousands of years ago. 

Also the so-called lake-dwellings and caves, in which 
men formerly lived in Europe, do not prove anything in 
favor of a higher antiquity of mankind than reliable 
history admits. Probably, the famous lake -dwellings 



192 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

are no older than a few centuries before Christ ; — and 
" the ordinary cave-man," as even Mr. Allen LGrrant 
admits,* " was superior in ingenuity and mental power 
to nine out of ten among our own modern savages, and 
quite equal to the run of our own laboring classes." 

What solid reason, then, is there for assuming that 
their antiquity reaches beyond even one thousand years 
before Christ ? 

Some other so-called arguments in favor of a very 
remote antiquity of mankind, taken from the duration 
of the formation of beds of peat, of geological 
changes, etc., are not worth discussing, for they are 
based on the totally false assumption that these forma- 
tions, or changes, must have taken place " gradually and 
uniformly ; " whereas they often occurred suddenly and 
irregularly.'' 

There are yet these questions to be examined : Did 
man live in the so-called Ice- Age ? If so : How many 
thousands of years ago has this been ? We may call these 
questions " most interesting," as far as the antiquity of 
mankind is concerned ; for many so-called arguments in 
favor of an enormously high antiquity of mankind,, 
depend on the solution of these questions. 

To treat these questions clearly and briefly, we shall 
examine : 1. What do we mean by the " Ice- Age " or 
"Glacial-Period?" 2. How long ago was it ? 3. Did 
man exist in or before it ? 

What is meant by the Ice- Age ? Geologists assert 
that after such animals as the horse, the camel, the 

8. The Popular- Science Monthly. November, 1883, p. 95. 

9. Evidences of Religion, by Louis Jouin, S. J., p. 146. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPARED. 193 

elephant, the bear, etc., had been in existence for a 
long while, the high northern latitudes which were 
covered with the warm waters of the ocean experienced a 
remarkable uplifting which caused great climatic changes. 
Glaciers covered lands which before had enjoyed a 
pleasant climate, — and, in America, carried pieces of rocks 
from northern regions, and copper from Lake Superior, 
etc., as far dov/n south as to the Ohio River. 

Some think the Ice- Age came on gradually ; whereas 
others are of the opinion that it made its appearance quite 
suddenly. Some again assume two distinct Ice- Ages ; 
whereas others are inclined to think that the respective 
phenomena can be explained on the assumption of but 
one such period. 

How long ago was the Ice- Age ? How little so-called 
Modern Science knows on the subject may be inferred 
from the following statements of modern scientists : ^^ 
Mr. Croll estimates the beginning of the Glacial Period 
at two hundred and forty thousand years ago, and the 
period itself, as having lasted one thousand and six 
hundred centuries ! Other geologists estimate the Ice- 
Period to have been one billion two hundred and 
eighty million years ago ! ! Sir C. Lyell, at first, thought 
the Ice-Period to have been about eight hundred thous- 
and years ago, — but, after more mature reflection, he 
came to the conclusion that two hundred thousand 
years would suflice. 

Other authorities on Geology think, from what is 
known with certainty, that the Ice-Age, or Glacial 
Period, may have been hut a feio thousand years ago. 
10. See Recent Orig-in of Man, by James C Southall, pp. 47, 263, 495. 



194 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

In the second volume of the Transactions of the Chi- 
cago Academy of Science, a paper by Prof. Andrews was 
published on "The North-American Lakes considered as 
Chronometers of Post-Glacial Time," which seems to be 
a complete refutation of the j^revailing opinion as to an 
extremely remote period of the Ice- Age. 

Dr. Andrews comes to the conclusion that "the total 
time of all the deposits, since the Ice-Age, appears to be 
somewhere between five thousand three hundred, and 
seven thousand live hundred years." 

This would bring the time of the Ice-Age, or Glacial 
Period, and the Biblical Deluge closely together. Dr. 
Lorinser ^^ does not consider it impossible, or improb- 
able, for all we know, that the Biblical Deluge and the 
Geological Diluvium caused by the Ice-Age, had some 
intimate connection, or were, perhaps, identical. 

The last question to be answered, is : Did man exists 
at the time of the Ice-Period ? 

Dr. Guettler ^^ says : "Whilst Perty, Schleiden, linger, 
and Buechner, assert that men lived in Switzerland 
before the Ice-Period, Vogt, Lyell, and Pfaff, unani- 
mously declare : "We have everywhere found evidences 
of the appearance of man only after the formation of the 
glacial till — in Scandinavia, England, and Switzerland." 

Thus we see that geologists disagree amongst them- 
selves, as to whether, or not, any traces of man have been 
found, that are older than the Ice-Period. 

On reviewing Avhat has been said in this article in re- 
ference to the Antiquity of Mankind, we come to the 

11, Geologie und Palaeontologie, p. 342. 
13. Natui'forschung und Bibel, p. 364. 



CHKISTIAX DOCTKIXES COMrAEED. 195 

following conclusions : 1. All undoubtedly established 
historical facts are perfectly consistent with what the 
Bible relates since the time of the Deluge. Mr. G. Raw- 
linson ^^ remarks : "According to the Septuagint version 
(of the Bible), the date of the Deluge was certainly 
anterior to B. C. 3000." And according to the same au- 
thority, there is no proof extant that the most ancient 
monarchies — of Egypt and Babylon — were founded 
^ny earlier than about 2,500 years before Christ. 2. As 
to the existence of men before the time of the Deluge, 
or before the origin of those two most ancient monar- 
chies. Modern Science knows nothing certain. 

We may therefore safely assert that Modern Science 
does not contradict the Bible as to the Antiquity of 
jVIankind. 

4. THE DELUGE. 

The traditions of the most ancient nations, with re- 
markable unanimity, relate that a great Deluge once 
swept nearly all mankind out of existence. Such 
traditions were met with not only among the ancient 
Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Babylonians, etc., but 
also among the Mexican and other American Indians.^ 

What these various traditions describe in a confused 
and distorted manner, is clearly stated by the Bible. 
We read : " The water was fifteen cubits higher than 
the mountains which it covered. And all the flesh was 
destroyed that moved upon the Earth, both of fowl, and 



13. The Origin of Nations. Chapt. II. 

1. See The Recent Origin of Man, pp. 34-36; and, Die Traditionen 
des Menschengeschlechts, von Dr. Heinrich Luecken, pp. 189-367. 



196 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that 
creep upon the Earth : and all men." (Genesis 7,. 
20-21.) 

What were the causes of this Deluge ? In the first 
place, the will of God Who intended to punish the 
crimes qf mankind. As to the secondary causes which 
God used as means, the well known French scientist 
Louis Figuier remarks : ^ " All the particulars of the 
Biblical narrative * * * are only to be explained 
by the volcanic and muddy eruption which preceded the 
formation of Mount Ararat. The waters which pro- 
duced the inundation of the countries proceeded from 
a volcanic eruption accompanied by enormous volumes 
of vapour, which in due course became condensed and 
descended on the Earth, inundating the extensive plains 
which now stretch away from the foot of Ararat. The 
expresssion ' the Earth,' or * all the Earth ' as it is- 
tran slated in the Vulgate, which might be implied to 
mean the entire globe, is explained by Marcel de 
Serres, * * * and other philologists, as being an 
inaccurate translation. He has proved that the Hebrew 
word * haarets,' incorrectly translated ' all the Earth,*^ 
i s often used in the sense of region or country, and that,, 
in this instance, Moses used it to express only the part 
of the globe which was then peopled, and not the entire 
surface. In the same manner 'the mountains' 
(rendered 'all the mountains' in the Vulgate), only 
implies all the mountains known to Moses. Similarly, 
M. Glaire, in the ' Chrestomathie Hebraique,' * * 't^ 



2. The World before the Deluge, pp. 481- 



CHRISTIA?^ DOCTRINES COMPARED. 197 

quotes tlie passage in this sense : ' The waters were so 
prodigiously increased, that the highest mountains of 
the vast horizon were covered by them ; ' thus restrict- 
ing the mountains covered by the inundation to those 
bounded by the horizon. Nothing occurs, therefore, in 
the description given by Moses, to hinder us from seeing 
in the Asiatic Deluge a means made use of by God to 
•chastise and punish the human race, then in the infancy 
•of its existence, and which had strayed from the path 
which He had marked out for it. It seems to establish 
the countries lying at the foot of the Caucasus as the 
•cradle of the human race ; and it seems to establish 
also the upheaval of a chain of mountains, preceded by 
an eruption of volcanic mud, which drowned vast terri- 
tories entirely composed, in these regions, of plains of 
great extent." Thus far Mr. Figuier. 

This view may, at least substantially, be adopted by 
T^elievers in the Bible.^ According to this view, the 
Deluge would have covered only those regions of west- 
-ern Asia, which were then inhabited by mankind ; 
whilst such distant countries, as Australia, America, etc., 
would not have been reached by it. In these countries, 
animals and plants would not have been interfered with. 

Some believers in the Bible even go so far as to as- 
sume that, besides the family of Noah, some Mongolian 
■or Ethiopian families which had migrated into distant re- 
gions, perhaps beyond the Himalaya Mountains, or to 
"Central Africa, may have escaped the Deluge. The Jesuit 
Father Bellynk (Etudes religieuses, 1868, I, p. 578) ob- 



See Naturf orschung und Bibel, von Dr. Guettler, pp. 266-T8. 



198 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

serves * that "he would not censure such as think that 
this hypothesis will one clay become acce23ted." Yet^ 
some authorities are not inclined to favor this opinion. 
By keeping these leading ideas in mind, it will be 
easy to answer the silly objections advanced by Mr. In- 
gersoll and other unbelievers against the biblical narra- 
tive of the Deluge. 

5. THE LONG LIFE OF THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHS. 

Mr. Ingersoll declares in his "Interviews": "It is im- 
scientific to say that people at one time lived to be 
nearly a thousand years of age." To Mr. Ingersoll a 
great many things may appear to be "unscientific", 
because his limited intelligence cannot comprehend, 
them. 

To him it might appear "unscientific" to maintain 
that such enormous animals as the Ichthyosaurus and 
Plesiosaurus lived in remote geological ages ; and yet 
some of their skeletons have been found. Mr. Ingersoll 
might call it "unscientific" to say that formerly tropical 
plants, like the palms, flourished within the Arctic Circle,, 
where now only moss and low shrubs thrive ; and yet re- 
mains of them have been discovered there. Mr. Ingersoll 
might call it "unscientific" to claim that great numbers 
of mastadons once lived in the now continually ice-cov- 
ered northern Siberia ; and yet their tusks are found 
there by the hundreds. 

Thus Mr. Ingersoll may also boldly assert that it is. 
^'unscientific" to say that in remote ages men lived nearly 
L See Naturforschuug- und Bibel, von Dr. Carl Guettler, pp. 266-78. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXES COMPARED. 199 

a thousand years ; and yet the most ancient traditions of 
mankind relate it to have been a fact. Xot only Moses 
relates it, but also the Egyptian Manetho, the Chaldean 
Berosus, the Phoenian Mochus, the Greeks Hekataeus, 
Akusilaus, and others. The ancient Persians, Chinese, 
and Hindus, insinuate the same fact.^ 

Who is a greater authority on this point, Mr. Inger- 
soll — living several thousands of years after the events 
referred to — or the most ancient nations that were near 
the times of those long-lived Patriarchs ? 

If Mr. Ingersoll cannot comprehend how these could 
live so long, he may console himself with the words of 
Shakespeare : 

"There are more things in Heaven and on Earth, 
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." 

It is well known that if tropical plants are transported 
to colder or less favorable climates, they will grow 
weakly, and gradually deteriorate. In a similar manner 
it seems to have been with mankind. As long as man- 
kind lived in a climate most favorable to its constitution, 
probably near the former Paradise, men attained an 
enormous age ; but after the climate had become con- 
siderably changed, perhaps by the Deluge, the average 
age of man commenced to decrease. 

6. THE SPECIFIC UNITY OF MAXKIXD. 

It is one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
that all men have descended from Adam. 

There was a time when the doctrine of the origin of all 
mankind from some common ancestors was ridiculed by 

1. See : Die Traditionen des Menschengesehlechts von Dr. Luecken. 



200 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

unbelievers. Voltaire thought it could be believed only 
by blind persons, or by such as never had seen people 
of different races. Darwin and others have satisfactorily 
shown that great physiological differences may arise 
within the same organic species. Now-a-days, when some 
naturalists in all earnest maintain that even certain apes 
and man have descended from some common stock, it is 
seldom to find any scientist of note, who denies the 
possibility of the origin of all existing races of men from 
some common parents. 

Mr. John Brocklesby^ remarks On the subject : "The 
anatomical structure and physical constitution of man 
point decidedly to the unity of the race : the true skin 
* * * is alike in structure in all nations ; there is the 
same general coincidence in respect to the age when 
manhood is attained, and to the period when life begins 
to decline ; all races are subject to similar diseases, mo- 
dified by varied climatic influences ; and the length of 
life is, on an average, the same under similar conditions of 
existence. The resemblances which exist throughout the 
languages and dialects of the world attest the same 
fact ; for the Indo-European group of nations * * * 
are all bound to each other by the affinity of their 
languages, — though they possess every shade of color 
belonging to the human race, ranging from the fair and 
ruddy complexion, through the swarthy and olive, to 
the deep black." 

The learned Pritchard, author of the "The Phys- 
ical History of Mankind," observes on the same sub- 
ject : " We contemplate among all the diversified tribes 

1. Elements of Physical Geogi-aphy, p. 14T. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 201 

of the human race the same internal feelings, appeten- 
■cies, and aversions ; the same inward convictions, the 
same sentiments of subjection to invisible powers, and 
of accountableness, more or less developed, to unseen 
avengers of wrong, from whose tribunal men cannot, 
even by death, escape. We find everywhere the same 
susceptibility, though not always in the same degree of 
forwardness or ripeness of improvement, of admitting 
the cultivation of these universal endowments, of open- 
ing the eyes of the mind to the more clear and lumin- 
ous views which Christianity unfolds, of becoming- 
moulded to the institutions of religion, and of civilized 
life : in a word, the same inward and mental nature is 
to be recognized in all races of men." 

The differences now existino^ amono- the various 
human races, have been gradually developed by different 
climatic and other influences. 

How long it may have taken to develop the most ex- 
treme differences, we are now unable to determine ; but 
some naturalists, as Burdach, Wilbrand, and A. Wagner, 
are of the opinion — that mankind in its youth was 
more pliable and inclined to the formation of different 
races, than now-a-days, — after the peculiarities of the 
various races, inherited through a long series of ancest- 
ors, have become more iixed. 



In 1655 Isaac de la Peyrere advanced the theory that 
^'Adam was the progenitor of the Jewish race only, 
.and it is only of him and his race that the Bible is de- 
.signed to supply the history. Other races existed on 



202 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

Earth before that of Adam ; but of them the Bible- 
contains no record, nor did the Mosaic law regard them,, 
or impose any obligation upon them. It was only under 
the Gospel that they began to be comprehended in the 
law, which through Christ was given to all the human 
races of the Earth." ^ 

Strange as this theory may seem to nearly all be- 
lievers in the Bible, we find it defended by even such 
a well-known American scientist as Prof. Alexander 
Winchell,^ of the University of Michigan. 

Let us examine briefly the principal arguments which 
seem to Prof. Winchell to favor this theory. 

In the first place, we know from Egyptian monuments, 
that — " as early as the twelfth dynasty, the Egyptians, 
recognized four races — the red, the yellow, the black,, 
and the white." This twelfth dynasty niled in Egypt 
about 1643, according to Strong, or 2300 years before 
Christ, according to Lepsius. 

Now, the Deluge occurred according to Usher 2348, 
according to Strong 2515, and according to Poole 
3099 years before Christ. From this it would seem 
that but a comparatively short time after the Deluge 
the perfectly developed negro, as he still " is to-day upon 
the banks of the Congo," was known to the Egyptians. 

Prof. Winchell thinks it impossible that the negro- 
type could have been developed within so short a time 
after the Deluge. Hence he concludes that the negroes 
are no descendants of Noah — their ancestors must have 
existed before the Deluge and survived the same. 



1. See Pre- Adamites, in Chambers' Encyclopedia. 

2. Pre-Adamites ; or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men 
before Adam, Chicago, 1881. 



christia:n^ doctrines compared. 203 

Assuming, then, that the negroes are no descendants 
of Xoah, could they not be descendants of Adam who, 
according to the estimate of some savants, lived about 
2000 years before the Deluge ? — Would not that time 
have sufficed for the perfect development of the negro- 
type ? 

Prof. Winchell thinks — not; for the following reasons: 
From Egpptian monuments we know that nearly 4000 
years ago the negro was as completely a negro as he is 
still to-day ; no change can be detected ; and we have 
no right to assume that the negro changed only for a 
short time — and then permanently retained his charac- 
teristics. 

Moreover, we know from Paleontology that numerous 
still living organic forms, as the crocodile, dog, ox, etc. 
existed at the time "when the negro is known to have 
been fully differentiated ; * * * they generally 
exhibit no more organic change during 4000 years than 
the negro does." 

Prof. Winchell adds ^ : " Some of the unvarying 
lines of descent can be traced backward beyond forty 
centuries. Do we find them manifesting rapid changes 
during the next preceeding twenty centuries ? * * * Xo; 
6000 years reveal no more change than 4000, so far as 
our means of measurement go. The lineage of the horse 
reaches back far beyond the accepted epoch of Adam, 
and he is everywhere a horse. By all analogies the 
negro-type must have persisted from an epoch more re- 
mote than Adam. * * * All the positive data tend tow- 



3, Preadamites, pp. 316-8. 



-204 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

^rd the conviction that the negro has come down to us 
from i^readamic times ; that he has always varied at a 
rate practically uniform, and that consequently his origin 
must not be sought in Noah, 4000 years back, nor in 
Adam, 6000 years back, but in some humble progenitor 
living on the Earth many thousand years before Adam." 

In reply, we may say : Prof. Winchell is here trying 
to built a firm tower on a very poor and unstable foun- 
dation. 

In the first place, neither the exact dates of the Deluge 
nor of the Egyptian monuments referred to are known. 
Prof. Rawlinson* observes: " Chronology is upon the 
Egyptian monuments almost non-existent. This is the 
unanimous confession of the Egyptologers. ' The evi- 
dence of the monuments ' in respect of the chronology, 
says Mr. B. Stuart Poole, ' is neither full nor explicit.' 
■* Chronology,' says Baron Bunsen, ' cannot be elicited 
from them.' ' The greatest obstacle,' says M. Mariette, 
■* to the establishment of a regular Egyptian chronology 
is the circumstance that the Egyptians themselves 
never had any chronology at all.'' " 

Secondly, not much more reliable than the Egyptian is 
the biblical chronology which some learned biblicists 
have founded on disconnected and somewhat unsett- 
led data given in the Bible. As observed in a former 
article, we have no assurance that copyists and transla- 
tors have not made numerous mistakes in transcribing 
the numbers of years. The chronological data of the 
l^ulgate and of the still existing Hebrew text differ con- 



4. The Orig-in of Nations, New York, 1881, p. 6. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTRINES COMPARED. 205^ 

siderably from those of the famous Septuagint. "In the 
geneological tables of the fifth and the eleventh chapters 
of Genesis," as Dr. Reusch '^ remarks, "the dates of 
the Greek and Samaritan texts are different from those 
of the Hebrew and Latin." The same author does not 
consider it improbable that the original geneological 
tables have been considerably abridged by copyists. 

Dr. Bernhard Schaefer ^ asserts : "It is impossible to 
built up a complete and absolutely reliable system of 
chronology from the biblical data, because of many of 
them we do not possess any more the original text ; 
moreover, the Bible neither intends to give nor gives us 
a chronological system." 

The learned Jesuit Bellynk ^ declares : " The Bible- 
contains no chronology . The geneologies of the Holy 
Book, from which the data are derived, are incomplete. 
How many years are wanting in this broken chain, one 
cannot tell. Science may postpone the Deluge as many 
centuries as it finds necessary." 

From all this Prof. Winchell will see that we are by 
no means obliged to infer — from Egyptian and bib- 
lical chronology — that the perfectly developed negro- 
type was known to the Egyptians, perhaps, about three or 
four centuries after the Deluge. For all we know, the 
Egyptian monuments which show the most ancient 
traces of the negro, may have been erected by far more 
than a thousand years later than the real date of 
the Deluge. 



5. Bibel und Natur, Freiburg-, 1866, p. 4ao. 

6. Bibel und Wissenschaft, Muenster, 1881, p. 105. 

7. Quoted by Dr. Carl Guettler : Naturf orschung und Bibel, 1877, p. 316. 



206 MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS ON MAN AND 

Now, could the negro-type have been perfectly 
developed within — let us say, a thousand years ? 

Let it not be forgotten that Prof. Winchell's so-called 
negro-type is something rather indefinite. Pritchard ^ 
observes that there is perhaps not a single tribe which 
has all the characteristics in their full perfection, that 
are usually ascribed to negroes. Some tribes are per- 
fectly black, but they have not the physiognomy of 
other negroes, but rather of Asiatics or Europeans. 

The negro-type, then, is hardly anything so fixed and 
unchangeable as Prof. Winchell seems to assume. If 
he can quote some authorities in favor of his views, 
others could be quoted that are of contrary opinion. 
Dr. Reusch^ and Cardinal Wiseman ^"^ have mentioned a 
great number, of authorities who seem to hold that the 
various types of mankind could have been developed in 
a comparatively short time. 

A conclusive proof that there was not time enough 
for the negro-type to develop fully between the times 
of the Deluge and the Egyptian monuments referred 
to — is still Avanting, 

But let us assume Science should ever be able to show 
such a proof — what then ? As suggested in a preceding 
article, — then we might adoj^t the theory " that besides 
the family of Noah, some other families, descendants 
of Adam, who lived beyond the reach of the Deluge, 
perhaps in Central Africa and beyond the Himalaya 

8. Quoted by Dr. Reusch, Bibel und Natur, p. 405. 

9. iL. c, pp. 380-425. 

10. Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Re- 
ligion. Lectures III and IV. 

11. See Dr. Carl Guettler : Naturforschung- und Bibel, p. 375. 



CHRISTIAX DOCTEIXES COMPAEED. ■ 207 

3IountainSj — survived the catastrophy which swept away 
all the rest of mankind known to the inspired writer. 
But, as yet, we are not compelled to adopt this theory. 
Moreover, some have suggested that perhaps the wife 
of one of the sons of Xoah was a negress. This 
assumption would, no doubt, to a great extent explain 
the early appearance of negroes, soon after the Deluge. 

Prof. Winchell goes still further ; he holds that the 
iiegro-type dates back to a time anterior even to Adam. 
He appeals to Paleontology in favor of his view. 

But althouo;h " the lineaoje of the horse reaches back 
far beyond the accepted epocli of Adam " — this is yet 
no proof that '' the negro-type must have persisted from 
an epoch more remote than Adam," — although the 
horse is everywhere a horse, and the negro a negro. 

Arguments — from analogy — are often poor proofs, as 
also the following will show. 

Prof. Winchell observes : ^'^ " Those who hold that 
the White race, the consumate flower of the tree, has 
served as the root from which all inferior races have 
ramified, may select their own method of rearing a 
tree Avith its roots in the air and its blossoms 
in the ground." We deny that the White race 
— or Adam — was the consumate flover of a tree ; 
we maintain that Adam was a perfect tvee^ — not only 
a product of one. He came directly from the 
hands of the Creator, endowed and adorned with the 
highest possible ^^hysical and supernatural beauty and 
perfection ; he was created to " the image and likeness " 



]2. Pre-Adamites, p. 297 



208 MAIS^ AND THE INVISIBLE WORLD AND 

of God. The inferior races that have descended from 
Adam, have gradually deteriorated ; as, for instance, 
also apple-trees and many other trees are well known to 
deteriorate, when they are propagated by seeds. 

The claim that the Bible favors the theory of the 
existence of pre- Adamites, seems somewhat bold, in con- 
sideration of the fact that for thousands of years before 
Peyrere neither Jews nor Christians were led by the 
Bible to suspect the probability of such a theory. 

The biblical passages referred to do not imply the 
existence of people before Adam, as J. Perrone ^^ shows 
satisfactorily; and some biblical passages plainly declare 
or imply that all men are descendants of Adam, that all 
men have sinned in Adam, and that therefore Christ 
died for all men. 



IX. MAN AND THE INVISIBLE WORLD. 

ny T'AN was created by God, not merely to be the 
crown of the visible creation, but also to be the 
connecting link between the material and spiritual 
worlds. 

As to his body, man belongs to the material, as to his 
immortal soul, to the spiritual world. 

Therefore the human soul instinctively longs for some- 
thing higher, more sublime than the material world can 
give ; the soul of man longs for God according to 
Whose image and likeness it has been created. 

13. Praelectlones Theologricae, Ratisbonae, 1854, vol. V., pp. 96-114". 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES fcOMPARED. 209 

St. Augustine expressed this truth in the words: "Thou, 
O God, hast created us for Thee, and our heart is un- 
quiet, until it will rest in Thee." 

This explains why religious sentiments are so deeply 
implanted in the hearts of all men. Plutarch (Adversus 
Coloten) could say : "If you travel through countries, 
you may find cities without walls, literature, laws, riches, 
and money, without gymnasia and theatres ; but no one 
ever saw a city without temples and deities, without 
prayers." 

So deeply are religious sentiments implanted in man, 
that if he has lost the knowledge of the One True God, 
he will rather worship false gods of wood, stone, or 
brass, than not give vent to his religious sentiments at 
all. 

The Bible informs us, that God Himself instructed 
the first parents in Paradise, how they should worship 
Him by the sacrifice of obedience. In case of their obe- 
dience, God promised them blissful immortality ; but, 
in case of their disobedience, death. The Bible relates, 
that the first parents disobeyed God, and thereby brought 
death upon themselves and all their descendents. 

What have modern scientists to say on this point ? 

Mr. John W. Draper ^ triumphantly observes : "The 

doctrine declared to be orthodox by ecclesiastical au- 
thority is overthrown by unquestionable discoveries of 
Modern Science. Long before a human being had ap- 
peared upon Earth, millions of individuals — nay, more, 



1. History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, p. 57. 



210 MAN AND THE INVISIBLE WORLD AND 

thousands of species and even genera — had died ; those 
which remain with us are an insignificant fraction of the 
vast hosts that have passed away." 

Had Mr. Draper and other infidels, who raise this ob- 
jection, carefully studied the Bible, they would have 
learned that the Holy Book teaches only in reference to 
manhind that death came upon all in consequence of 
sin. 

Man alone, the crown of the visible creation, the vice- 
gerent of God, was to be immortal, if he remained 
faithful to his Creator ; but of plants and animals that 
were created only for the use or benefit of man. Divine 
Revelation does not teach that they, too, had been 
endowed with immortality before the first sin of man. 

Hence, Modern Science has, by the discovery of fossil 
remains of animals that lived long before man could 
exist, discovered nothing that ought to startle any in- 
telligent Christian. 

As to other subjects concerning Man's relations to 
the Invisible World, as miracles, prophecies, angels, etc.. 
Modern Science, for obvious reasons, has discovered 
nothing new that deserves to be mentioned ; for the 
common, stale objections against miracles, etc. have 
been refuted centuries ago by Christian theologians 
and philosophers. 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 211 

X. CONCLUSION. 

TUTAVING carefully compared the principal Modern 
Scientific Yiews which in some way or another 
come in contact with Christian Doctrines, the reader 
will, I hope, have become convinced of the following 
truths : 

First, although Modern Science has met with remark- 
able successes in investigating various phenomena of 
Nature, yet as to their most remote mysterious causes 
our scientists know substantially no more than Aristotle 
and other philosophers did know thousands of years 
ago. It is no exaggeration to say with Prof. A. P. Pea- 
body^ of Harvard College : "Six thousand years of re- 
search have failed to reveal in matter inherent powers 
that produce motion, organization, growth, transforma- 
tion. We talk, indeed, of gravitation, caloric, electricity, 
magnetism, (etc., etc.) as if we knew what they are ; 
yet these are but euphemisms for our ignorance, — fence- 
words set up at the outermost limit of our knowledge." 

Secondly, those truths or facts which Modern Science 
has discovered, are in perfect harmony with the truths 
of Divine Revelation, or the Doctrines of Christianity. 
Although, now and then, at first sight, this does not 
seem to be the case, yet tho7'ouf/h investigation invaiYisLblj 
reveals the harmonies existing between the truths which 
God teaches both in the book of Nature and in the book 
of suj^ernatural Revelation. The words of Francis Bacon 
will always remain true : "A little philosophy inclineth 
man's mind to Atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth 

1. Christianity the Religion of Nature, Boston, ISB-t, p. 64. 



212 CONCLUSION. 

men's minds about to Religion." It is never true Science 
that is dangerous to Religion, but only such superficial 
knowledge as now-a-days puffs up many a one who has 
not yet learned enough to see how little he reg-lly knows. 
Such people swell the ranks of Modern Infidelity, be- 
cause they readily venture to decide on even the most 
difficult questions of Science or Religion, before they 
are able to examine them fully. It is not true, thorough 
Science — but the want of it — that produces scoflfing un- 
believers. 

Whatever Science may discover, in the midst of 
human theories that continually succeed each other and 
change like the billows of the ocean, — one thing is cer- 
tain — the Rock of God's Word will never be shaken. 

"THE TRUTH OF THE LORD REMAINETH 
FOREVER." Ps. 116, 1. 



MODERN 



SCIENTIFIC VIEWS 



AND — 



0HRISTIAN D0STRII2ES 

COMPARED. 

Rev. JOHN GMEINER, 

Pkofess(jk in the Theolooical Seminahv at St. Francis, 
Milwaukee ('o., Wis. 



"It is ti-ne, that a little philosophy inclincth nuiM's mind to 
Atheism, but depth in philosophj' bvinueth ineirs iniiids ahmit to 
UeligUm."— Francis Bacon of Yerulain. 



MILWAUKEE, WIS: ^ / 

J. H. YEWDAiiE & Sons,. PINTERS, ^^ CvY 

1884. " • - - ■ 



MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES COMPARED. 



By Rev. JOHN GMEINER. 



Price, paper cover, xiiujle copy, . . . - .r,fy 

Five copicx to one addrcfts, .... $2.00 

Z>» cloth, each copy, ------ .;,") 



On receipt pf the price mentioned, this book will be sent by the 
undersifined, postpaid, to any address in the United States, provided it 
Avill be oi'dercd at any time within the scholastic year from September, 
1884, till June M, 1885. 

A liberal discount will be allowed to Booksellers and Ag-ents, as 
also to Cierii-ymen and Students, ordering- ten copies or moi-e at once. 

Address : 

Prof. JOHN GMEINER, 

St. Francis, near Milwaukee, Wis. 






mmii 



»l^,AAA«A.AAA.f^^ 



'mfmm...,.^€2^7^im 



,AAAA•^^^' 



Ai aA^A^^A/^Aaa A,A A/., A .^ A^;^ -^ o A^ 



iTlAlMHfl^n'^ATMAUl 



.s^^Mmf0 



m^- 



AA.ftff 



WiKftA»iAAAA»A/rft 



aaaOCwR^^S^: 



Anf^.n^.AAi 






,,,;r«««^* 



^/^^^aI 



m^,m 



i«ft&S«« 



^A«f^Ar\^^, 



^^VA'^.««Aann^^^nWf^R8«4ii8iirf 



\H^nf\^f\Kh;AArs:.A*^Ar' 



.^.f^.^^^mmK^h0^^^' 



:A^'^A^A 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



m^mrivwr\.t\f\.^Dm 












AAAAOr^ : aA. 






^^^'^'!«ft?lA,«I^^^A^ 



.|M#^^^.*^' 



AA^OA 






^-'^ ■'■^^^%AA^MM^MAMAA^, 



^^A'^^A^,.^ 



; '^AAr^AAA^^'r^^'^^^AA. 






Arv/vAAAAr^ 






'^^te^^A^^^'^A 



^^^^MWawww^^i 



AA^^AA.^.''^,AA■ 



^^^aaaAAA^^^' 



^'^^RAA.a/^^W 



..^..ft^-^» 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




^0 013 541 762 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 557 620 



